Affirmative Action, Scandinavian Style - Norway has lost the plot...

  • Thread starter Famine
  • 89 comments
  • 4,679 views
Whether or not the men were more qualified is beyond the point in my opinion, because we're not talking about a huge difference. Today, woman are just as smart and hard-working as men.
Which is not always the case in a job application. A man be may more qualified than a women. With what you are saying, if the company chooses the more qualified man, they are sexist.

You're supposed to take the woman because she most likely (and when i say most likely i mean most likely...just look at the statistics) worked harder to get to the same point as Frank, because the world we live in is still full of prejudice.
That is an overly idealist view of the world. Companies exist to make money. If Frank makes 1% more, that is 1% more. Companies care about money. They don't care about gender statistics, because if the male they hired makes more money than the female they could have hired, they made more money. If women had some miraculous power to always be good at business deals, all Fortune 500 companies would be women run, because that is what made the most money. Companies would only care about gender if it meant more money. They don't hire men because they are men.

What unknowns? If you really think about it, there are none that morally make sense.
What unknowns? Maybe very few women apply at the place. Maybe very many highly qualified men did. The entire argument that companies have more men and are therefore sexist is filled with inconsistencies, and companies don't care.

You're right, the school was probably not christened all-black. But the neighborhood is probably economically segregated by what jobs those people can get, and crazy old white ladies who think the "separate but equal" policy was doing a bang-up job before those got rid of it.
Exactly. Which is something you can't legislate for. Your taking a supposition and saying it happens more than it doesn't, and making a law on it. It is no different from when they used to make black kids go out of there way to go to white schools so it would look like they were racially integrated.

What i'm trying to say is that it almost can be taken as fact that men are hired more often only because they are men, because the statistics show it.
The statistics show that there are men at hire paying jobs. You cannot draw any conclusions based purely on that.

Yes you can because like i said before, one is based on government policy for the greater good (the greater good) and the other is based on mindless prejudice.
The fact that they are different in makeup means little when they both show the same bias. If you want to be against gender discrimination, you do not turn around and pass laws that give women an easier ride than a man. I don't care what the intended result was.

It's not immoral, pointless, or sexist. Not yet. More men still hold more jobs.
Actually, it is. This law says that you must choose a specific portion of your workforce based on gender more than abilities. What part of that sentence isn't sexist, immoral or pointless. The fact that women have spent x amount of years fighting the very thing this law hopes to fix means nothing when the law essentially imposes the women's previous struggles on men.

Giancarlo
I'm talking about this because it's messed up that women don't get equal chances
If a company bases hiring on qualifications, it is the epitome of equal opportunities. Whether or not the women spent half of her college term being discriminated against is out of the companies control, and they shouldn't be punished for something they have no control over. Legislation over sexism in education should be made to take care of that.

Giancarlo
The company should be punished for ignoring gender because that continues the process of inequality.
Ignoring gender when hiring for qualifications is not the same as ignoring sexism. Ignoring gender just means that they give the job to the best person for the job. No law guarantees any man a job like this one does. If a women wants a job, she better work harder than a man who wants a job, just like a man who wants a job over another man must do. This law makes it so a women can work less than a man to get a job if the company needs to hire a women. It is essentially written legislation of a bizarro 50's America, and it completely goes against women's rights.

Giancarlo
And you cannot tell me i wrongfully assume that most companies are sexist, because the numbers are there and they prove my point. Again, indirect sexism is the same thing as regular sexism.
The numbers merely say that more men have higher positions than women. You cannot use that alone as proof that women are prevented in some way from achieving as much as men.
Furthermore, indirect sexism means nothing. Just because a company has more men than women doesn't mean they find women inferior (which is what sexism essentially is). It just means they found more qualified men than they found women.


Your entire argument seems to be based on how this law somehow helps the struggle for women's rights. If anything, it knocks it back a couple of decades. Women's Rights is about how women want to be treated as equals to men. Not given any special treatment. They want to be rated on the same plane. If they apply for a job, they want to get it because they are qualified for the job. Not because a company needs to hire women to fill some meaningless statistic, which is essentially saying "you're not good enough, but take the job anyways."
 
Your entire argument seems to be based on how this law somehow helps the struggle for women's rights. If anything, it knocks it back a couple of decades. Women's Rights is about how women want to be treated as equals to men. Not given any special treatment. They want to be rated on the same plane. If they apply for a job, they want to get it because they are qualified for the job. Not because a company needs to hire women to fill some meaningless statistic, which is essentially saying "you're not good enough, but take the job anyways."

Quoted for truth.

My girlfriend commented that she'd rather get a job based on her ability to do it than because she was a woman - and added that such a policy devalues women who do get where they are through ability, because they'll always have the suspicion that they only got there through gender.

I still don't get why anyone would think it's fine to say who I, as a private employer, should give my money to. Nor why, when they get the same opportunity to say who, as taxpayers, they give their money to, choose not to be similarly constrained.
 
Why does government need to make a choice?



It merely needs to reward merit, nothing else. There's no need for government to get involved at all.

Forcing companies to appoint less capable people from different groupings only serves to devalue those from those groups who have managed to get there by merit - people think that they only got there through their physical characteristics and not abilities. This breeds resentment of that group - the exact opposite of what the legislation sets out to achieve.

Since the government created the imbalance in affluence in SA in the first place, it doesn't seem to me too harsh of them to take active steps to fix that. I suppose, alternatively, they could have just let the millions of poverty stricken undereducated South Africans fend for themselves, so that perhaps the few that survive might one day find themselves earning half decent money if they are lucky, but if you accept that the government bears some responsibility for the general wellbeing of the people it represents, then it's hard to accept them just leaving things alone. As I said, I don't think it's a fair system, but I can't think of anything better, and in SA, I think affirmative action was better than no action. I don't think the same about the situation in Norway.

EDIT: Oh, and an important point of how the law was made up in SA, which may or may not have similarities in the Norway situation. In SA, where the law favours the female gender above the male, as well as favouring, AFAIK, any race other than white, you didn't HAVE to give the job to the only woman who applied, if she wasn't qualified to do the role. If no suitable female (or non-white) could be found, you had two choices: 1) keep looking, or 2) show the government that you have made reasonable efforts to find a suitable candidate of correct skin colour / gender, that no such candidate is available, and then legally hire the best of the 28 white males who applied for the position. The law did not force companies to employ people who were not qualified to perform the role, but it DID force you to make specific hiring decisions when a suitable candidate from a minority group had applied.

Still, ultimately, I agree with Famine that this is not a fair law. It's meddlesome, restrictive, and negatively impacts the unfavoured group. I do, however, believe that it can be the lesser of two evils in extreme circumstances. Again, I don't think it's required in Norway.
 
Quoted for truth.

I still don't get why anyone would think it's fine to say who I, as a private employer, should give my money to. Nor why, when they get the same opportunity to say who, as taxpayers, they give their money to, choose not to be similarly constrained.

Truth? Ah i dunno. If that's truth then why couldn't we just say the same for handicapped people? We don't have to help them, after all.

It's easier to control a company's decisions on who it hires than it is to control people who are voting someone into office. The latter is also pretty illegal.
 
“Good” if you believe in positive liberty – i.e., extortion.

“Bad” if you believe in negative liberty – i.e., freedom from extortion.
 
It's easier to control a company's decisions on who it hires than it is to control people who are voting someone into office. The latter is also pretty illegal.

And the former is totally immoral.

You're skirting round the input of a female too.
 
I don't understand what this means.

Earlier, you said none of us could understand the ramifications of such a law properly, because we aren't women:

Giancarlo
I just don't think any of us understand it because we are not female,

I then passed on to you my girlfriend's comments:

Famine
My girlfriend commented that she'd rather get a job based on her ability to do it than because she was a woman - and added that such a policy devalues women who do get where they are through ability, because they'll always have the suspicion that they only got there through gender.

You have let this pass without comment, though I've posted it twice.
 
Earlier, you said none of us could understand the ramifications of such a law properly, because we aren't women:

I then passed on to you my girlfriend's comments:

You have let this pass without comment, though I've posted it twice.

Oh, i didn't pass it. I mean that's her opinion. But i was referring to how you guys seemed to pass on how women have worked very hard to try and get on an equal level with men in our society.

Sage covered it. We of course should be free to help them. But it's not right to coerce people to do so.

How is it not right to coerce people that building ramps for the handicapped is a right thing to do? That makes no sense. I understand people want to stand by their opinions and that in America and many countries we're free to express those opinions, but this is a very different case. Handicapped people need to have buildings made so they can access them. Women need to be on the same level as men. If in order to help move that along we need to pass laws, then it has to be done.
 
If I don't want a blind person in my shop, why should I be forced to have blind-friendly facilities?
 
How is it not right to coerce people that building ramps for the handicapped is a right thing to do?
So you’re okay with holding a gun to the head of a owner of a small donut shop and telling him that he must put in a ramp so that a wheelchair-bound person can eat donuts?
 
So you’re okay with holding a gun to the head of a owner of a small donut shop and telling him that he must put in a ramp so that a wheelchair-bound person can eat his donuts?

Fixed.
 
If I don't want a blind person in my shop, why should I be forced to have blind-friendly facilities?

'Political correctness', I think. They (the government and the public) see this lack of accommodation as discrimination, and no doubt that someone would be offended in the process. So, they voice their opinions, and in a 'free country', power can be unbalanced, and the government, who has to serve their subjects to start, enforce these laws.

Back to the conversation...
 
If I don't want a blind person in my shop, why should I be forced to have blind-friendly facilities?

Because blind people are humans too? Because you have no basis that blind people cause you problems of any sort? It's not contagious, you know.

So you’re okay with holding a gun to the head of a owner of a small donut shop and telling him that he must put in a ramp so that a wheelchair-bound person can eat donuts?

Of course! Especially if it's apparent many people who use wheelchairs want to eat donuts there!

Are you serious? You don't care about that person in the wheelchair?
 
Of course! Especially if it's apparent many people who use wheelchairs want to eat donuts there!
We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree, because clearly you’re okay with socialism, while I think it’s the most evil thing in the entire world. I absolutely refuse to hold a gun to somebody’s head unless they’re physically harming someone else or their property.
 
What I want to know is what happens if there aren't enough women with the prerequisite skills for the job to fulfill the quota. For example, I sit on the board for an automotive restoration company. The company employs nine people, plus the owner/manager and a part-time receptionist (so 10.5 fulltime employees (FTEs) in total). One of the FTEs is female and the partime receptionist is also female giving a ratio of 9 men : 1.5 women. There is a very simple explanation for the skewed ratio and it has nothing to do with sexism in employment. It is a fact that automotive repair/panel beating tends to attract far more men than women.

The last time the company advertised for an Automotive Refinisher, if I remember correctly, they had 10 applicants. None were female.

So what should this company do? Grab unskilled females off the street and force them to work for the company or hire one of the 10 skilled males that applied? No prizes for guessing what they chose to do.
 
Because blind people are humans too? Because you have no basis that blind people cause you problems of any sort? It's not contagious, you know.

I own the property. Why should I have to let them in if I don't want to?

I own the goods in the shop. Why should I have to sell them to people I don't want to sell them to.

If I don't want someone's money, why do we need legislation that says I have to take it?
 
Truth? Ah i dunno. If that's truth then why couldn't we just say the same for handicapped people?

In Australia there are some government programs to subsidise employers if they choose to hire a handicapped person from a employment agency for people with disabilities.

It doesn’t force an employer to do anything, but should they find two equally suitable people for a position it gives them some incentive to choose the handicapped person.
 
In Australia there are some government programs to subsidise employers if they choose to hire a handicapped person from a employment agency for people with disabilities.

It doesn’t force an employer to do anything, but should they find two equally suitable people for a position it gives them some incentive to choose the handicapped person.

Better, but still not right. Keep in mind that the word "subsidize" means "forcibly take money from some people and give it to others".
 
:bowdown:

Eventually, It'll be impossible to get a job as a white middle-class male...

Or, you know, just as easy and just as hard as getting one as a black man. Or a woman. Etc.

We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree, because clearly you’re okay with socialism, while I think it’s the most evil thing in the entire world. I absolutely refuse to hold a gun to somebody’s head unless they’re physically harming someone else or their property.

Is refusing to help someone simply because you don't "want to" not harming them? If God forbid someone you cared about fell off their bicycle and broke a leg in the middle of a busy intersection, and then no one walking by even tried to help even though they saw the person, are those people not partly responsible for whatever happens to that individual?

It's not socialism, it's common sense. We need to take care of each other.

I own the property. Why should I have to let them in if I don't want to?

I own the goods in the shop. Why should I have to sell them to people I don't want to sell them to.

If I don't want someone's money, why do we need legislation that says I have to take it?

Better, but still not right. Keep in mind that the word "subsidize" means "forcibly take money from some people and give it to others".

Well then, i hope you neither of you ever went to college on a scholarship, or claimed any tax write-offs, or ever use some form of Social Security/Welfare.

Or used anything paid for by tax dollars, for that matter. It's the taxpayers' money, so they themselves should choose what programs it goes to, right?
 
This could actually be asked in a slightly different manner, since this seems to come down to whether or not the government should interfere in private business, at this level (or perhaps at any) and it's about where to draw the line.

If instead of looking at affirmative action as implemented in Norway, we instead ask if companies, religeous or political groups, or clubs, or whatever, are oppressing another group because of their gender, beliefs, race or whatever, does Government have any responsibility at all to step in and enforce a change in behaviour? If so, where does the line get drawn where the government steps back and allows the country's population the right to discriminate? If it is found, for instance, and hypothetically, that the predominantly christian captains of industry and heads of business in a country do not believe that muslims are capable of doing any job to the same level as a christian, for whatever reason, and as a result levels of unemployment and perhaps even poverty in the muslim areas is very high, is it unreasonable for the Government to take action to ensure that muslims get a fair shot at a job they are qualified for? If so, how can they do this, other than by saying, basically, "muslims make up 20% of the population, and get the educated in the same schools as christians, therefore 20% of the workforce should be muslim. Currently it is 5% muslim and 95% christian, in 5 years time by law it will have to be 15 - 25% muslim and 75 - 85% christian"?

Now push that to the Norway case where they find that the discrimination is apparent among board members specifically (odd in itself), is gender specific, and is likely having little impact on unemployment? The women can't get the top jobs but it doesn't say they can't get middle or upper management work, which sucks if you're a woman qualified to do a top job, but it's not going to cost you your house or your next meal. The law will have little impact on the majority of the population, but ignoring it is turning a blind eye to discrimination....

I still agree with the majority what the majority here seem to feel, that Norway has got it wrong.

Famine, ask your girlfriend how she would feel if she applied for ten board level roles that she was perfectly qualified to do, but was turned down for all of them just because she's a woman? I agree with all her observations to your question as posted, but this is the other side of the coin.. do you stand back and watch the bully steal take ice cream from the younger kids every breaktime, or do you talk softly to the bully while waving a big stick?
 
Famine, ask your girlfriend how she would feel if she applied for ten board level roles that she was perfectly qualified to do, but was turned down for all of them just because she's a woman?

Pretty much the same. It's discriminatory either way you look at it - but private individuals ought to be entirely free to discriminate if they choose.

Giancarlo
Or, you know, just as easy and just as hard as getting one as a black man. Or a woman. Etc.

Currently, in Norway, it's harder to get a job as a man than it is as a woman, due to government-stipulated sex discrimination. That is not equality.

Giancarlo
Is refusing to help someone simply because you don't "want to" not harming them? If God forbid someone you cared about fell off their bicycle and broke a leg in the middle of a busy intersection, and then no one walking by even tried to help even though they saw the person, are those people not partly responsible for whatever happens to that individual?

No.

Giancarlo
It's not socialism, it's common sense. We need to take care of each other.

People have the right to be assholes. Leave them to their own devices though and most people will give up their time for others and take care of those less able. And that would be the right thing to do.

What you're talking about is state-mandated coercion - at the threat of prison - to help others. And that's Socialism.


You need to have a think about what an "-ism" is. What IS sexism? Or racism? Sexism is the act of treating people differently because they have a different gender (or sexual orientation). Racism is the act of treating people differently because they are of a different race.

Giving a job to a man instead of a woman because it's a man = Sexism.
Giving a job to a woman instead of a man because it's a woman = Sexism.
Giving a job to a white man instead of a black man because it's a white man = Racism.
Giving a job to a black man instead of a white man because it's a black man = Racism.

Private companies have a private income - it comes from their investors and customers. They ought to be beholden to no-one when it comes time to give that money out by employing someone. It's sexist if they choose a man instead of a woman, but it's their right and prerogative to be sexist. Of course, if word gets out that they're sexist, they'll find themselves very unpopular with half of their potential customers and find shareholders writing terse letters, but it's up to them.

Governments have a public income - it comes from their taxes. They ought to be beholden to their electorate when it comes time to give that money out by employing someone. It's sexist if they choose (or pass laws telling others to choose) a woman instead of a man, and it is not their right or prerogative to be sexist - they are paid by everyone and must represent everyone.

The former is wrong but moral. The latter is wrong and immoral - and perpetuates sexism and breeds more sexist sentiment.


Giancarlo
Well then, i hope you neither of you ever went to college on a scholarship, or claimed any tax write-offs, or ever use some form of Social Security/Welfare.

Or used anything paid for by tax dollars, for that matter. It's the taxpayers' money, so they themselves should choose what programs it goes to, right?

Not that it's relevant - the discussion isn't about danoff, Sage or myself - but no, I haven't, beyond anything funded by voluntary tax (duty on alcohol, fuel tax and suchlike).
 
Famine covered everything quite nicely, but I thought I'd comment on this:

Well then, i hope you neither of you ever went to college on a scholarship, or claimed any tax write-offs, or ever use some form of Social Security/Welfare.

Or used anything paid for by tax dollars, for that matter. It's the taxpayers' money, so they themselves should choose what programs it goes to, right?

In the US, there are limits to what is constitutional to do with tax dollars. I would argue that "equal protection" prevents affirmative action subsidies. The basic concept is that the government shouldn't be favoring some citizens over others. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. This means no favors based on arbitrary criteria.
 
Back