1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How is it fair for companies to create race or gender specific advocacy groups?

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by serp777, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. serp777

    serp777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1,711
    Ratings:
    +402
    The company I work for brags about how progressive it is. It has numerous advocacy groups including a native american group, an african american group, an asian group, a women group, a latino group, an lgbt group, a disabled group, etc. Basically any minority or supposedly oppressed group you can think of.

    As a straight white male this feels like discrimination due to the fact that these groups host events with the leadership team to advance diversity in the workplace. That includes promotions, special work programs and more. The company, for example, is really striving hard to increase the number of women and POC in upper management. There is no advocacy group for me. And i'm not saying that these POC and women aren't deserving; many of them are and are extremely qualified, but it does seem to help if you have a lot of victimhood points.

    Of course I can't complain because then I'd be called a privileged cis white supremacist racist homophobe or some nonsense. This is despite the fact that i'm none of these things. I came from a poor family in a poor area and had to get student loans and work hard. Now I can't receive the same benefits because I have some supposed priviledge? Where do I cash in this priviledge again?

    Anyways the company constantly talks about how diverse it is and always mentions it has hired X number of women and POC which is really starting to bother me. Its not "we hired X people with strong skills and abilities", its we increased diversity by Y amount!

    What should I do about this and does anyone feel the same way at their company?
     
  2. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    53,466
    Ratings:
    +17,615
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Realize the straight white male has always held the dominate position in Western society and doesn't need advocacy or awareness. Where men, regardless of color, do tend to get shacted is in divorce, especially when it comes to costudy. If you want to do that, advocate for fair custody court decisions. But, ultimately, without awareness and advocacy then women and black people never get to where they are. White men arent losing a potential job just because they are white, they dont get it because women and black people are able to compete with them.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. serp777

    serp777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1,711
    Ratings:
    +402
    First of all i've never had a dominant position in western society and most white men haven't. Don't lump all white men together and treat us as a monolithic thing. Its a collectivist fallacy. Most white men have been poor as dirt and have barely had a nickel to their name. At the top 1% then yeah maybe white men had an advantage for a time. But that's certainly not the case anymore. There are no more insitutional barriers or laws for POC and women. And I have definitely considered flaunting my 5% native american ancestry to get special benefits and scholarships, but I realized that was unethical and participating in affirmative action is an affront.

    If its because of merit then that's great. Like i'm in favor of Harvard being mostly Asian because Asians tend to have better grades and SAT scores than other races. However i'm not in favor at all of Harvard discrimianting against Asians and accepting black people with lower test scores for the sake of diversity. That's racist and sick. Its discriminating against Asians and its racist against black people by suggesting that they're not good enough to do it on their own. They don't need special help they're equal human beings. Its equally racist and sick if it happens against white men. When you create specific advocacy groups for other races it creates an uneven playing field. If black people get a special advocacy group against Asians regardless of merit then I find that disgusting.

    They should be given access to the same level playing field with the same anti discrimination laws. It should be purely based on merit and have nothing to do with race.
     
  4. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    34,899
    Ratings:
    +12,999
    Religion:
    Love
    The white male advocacy group was just there, unspoken, but quite real. White men hired white men for good jobs. Blacks were janitors if they got hired. Women were secretaries.

    When things settle down, the various groups will no longer be necessary but they're a reaction to how things used to be for a long, long time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    34,899
    Ratings:
    +12,999
    Religion:
    Love
    When I was growing up, most white men were prosperous workers who had union jobs or middle class managers or professional people.

    The right wing has carefully destroyed unions so those on the top get more of the rewards and outsourced jobs to low wage countries so that decent factory jobs have disappeared.
     
  6. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,408
    Ratings:
    +4,007
    So you don't believe that white men occupy the vast majority of positions of power, are more likely to be hired, earn more, and are given opportunities that minority groups and women aren't getting?

    Okay, enjoy your comforting delusion.

    Except, it's not. Because the fact is that a lot of perfectly good black students don't get onto degrees like that because they are black. That's the point. Advocacy groups are designed to ensure that organizations don't discriminate against potential advocates on the basis of race, and to grant opportunities for members of those groups to obtain positions. Also, don't you think it's weird how you just insinutated that asian people get good grades and black people don't, and yet you keep stating that you believe races are equal? Have you ever stopped for a moment and wondered why that is?

    That comforting delusion again.

    Yes, black people and white people are equal "human beings", but in reality, black and white people are far from equal. Black people are still overwhelmingly discriminated against in the workforce, Universities, by the police, by the government and socially. Fact is, a lot of white men get into positions of power, employment or advantage because they are white men. Advocacy groups exist to ensure that this imbalance is corrected and that minority groups are not denied opportunities that otherwise would go to white men by default.

    No, it isn't. Why? Because white men continue to have almost all of the power in the world and still generally have far more advantages on their side.

    The playing field was already uneven - advocacy groups are evening it out.

    It has ALWAYS been based on race - that's the point. Fact is, white men have had an unfair playing field for hundreds of years, and as a result we have a society which unfairly rewards white men and unfairly mistreats minorities. This doesn't mean all white men are wealthy or successful, it means white men are significantly more likely to become wealthy and successful. If you deny this, you're just flat out wrong. What you are essentially saying here is "I think white men should continue to have all the advantages, because that's a level playing field." Do you not see the flaw in this logic?
     
    #6 ImmortalFlame, Jun 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    34,899
    Ratings:
    +12,999
    Religion:
    Love
    Also, there is an active element of racist, sexist trolls who attack anything that does not feature white men. These are plain and simply terrorists who ideally should be arrested and jailed.
     
  8. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    13,806
    Ratings:
    +4,800
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Vote Republican. At least this stuff won't have legal encouragement.

    And wait for enough of us white straight males to find a backbone and give them a collective eyeroll.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. serp777

    serp777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1,711
    Ratings:
    +402
    This is a collectivist fallacy. There are many different groups of white people with varying degrees of priviledge. It doesn't mean we should just blanket them and treat them the same. Certain subsets of white people like Jews may in fact be advantaged but others are redneck trailer trash. Certain groups of white irish were treated very terribly and were very disadvantaged, maybe even moreso than black people. Treating them all as one group is just ridiculous especially when applying affirmative action. Furthermore i'd like to see the evidence that white men are given more opportunties because they are white men. In fact Asians actually earn more, are better educated, and live longer. So are you complaining against Asians as well or just white people?

    Where is your evidence that its because they're white men? The disadvantages black people face is because they tend to be poorer, they tend to live in communities that have a lot of crime, and because they are the majority of single parent households. Now you can reasonably argue that's due to racism from the past, but that doesn't mean a white or asian person today should be punished for something their ancestors did. Nor does it mean a person should receive benefits because their grandparents faced some injustice. That just opens a can of worms where everyone is suddenly oppressed at some point in their family tree.

    I mean we just had a black president. Asians are the most educated and earn the most. More women go to universities than men. For the average white person i'm not seeing any benefit for being white at all. I mean you didn't respond to this so I'll ask it explicitly, but do you think Asians should be disadvantaged because they have a more priviledged position in society than all the other races?

    This is a riduclous and extremely ignorant statement. I mean have you heard of China? Or India? Or how about Japan? Or South Korea? How about the previous president, Barrack Obama? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Turkey? How about South Africa now that the apartheid is gone? Again where is your evidence that white people have all this power? Asians and Saudis have plenty of power in the world. XiJing Ping is currently the most powerful man in the world and he's Chinese, not white. Look at all the Chinese billionares and companies that are starting to dominate the world. White men simply do not have all the power in the world, not even close. Maybe not even half from an economic perspective. Or what about all of the women in power today? In the EU there a bunch of strong female leaders. We have a lot of women and POC in congress and in the house as well. Sure most are still white but the United States is mostly composed of white people so you would expect that. Its like how China's government is mostly Chinse.

    80 years ago race was a significant factor, but the fact is that the vast majority of white men aren't wealthy or successful, even 80 years ago. Most are in debt. Nobody is significantly likely to become wealthy. Very few people become wealthy at all regardless. so I don't know why you're judging the vast majority of poor white men and claiming they had some benefit because the top percent had advantages. its another collectivist fallacy.

    Also if you read anything I said I never said that white people should have any advantages. They should have the same level playing field and should be subject to the same anti discrimination laws. Race should be irrelevant. What you're implying is "We should disadvantage all white people and Asians because the top 10% received benefits".

    A vastly more sensible way of doing affirmative action is based on CLASS. In other words how poor you and your family are. You should never be discriminated against based on your race or receive disadvantages because of your skin color, even if you're white. The world needs to move past this racist mentality

    And i personally don't deserve to be disadvantaged because of my skin color and gender. I didn't get any benefits from being white and im currently missing out on opportunities because im not considered diverse. Just because it may have been uneven doesn't mean we artificially even it out. I should not pay because some unrelated white men were racist in the past. I mean presumably you think Asian's should be hired less and should be less likely to be accepted at university than black people due to the uneven playing field. People do not bear the sins of their race or their ancestors.
     
    #9 serp777, Jun 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  10. serp777

    serp777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1,711
    Ratings:
    +402
    That may have been the case during the 20th century, but as of 2019 that simplyisn't true. And I don't deserve to be punished based on my skin color because other white people in the past were racist. That is ridiculous and I do not bear the sins of other white people from 100 years ago. I should not be disadvantaged just because im white
     
  11. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,821
    Ratings:
    +8,456
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    It's clearly the admission that people are obviously different and are subject to different treatments.
     
  12. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    22,821
    Ratings:
    +8,456
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    And how does this exactly help?

    By discriminating against white people therein lies the answer?

    And how long is this supposed to last?
     
  13. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,552
    Ratings:
    +8,237
    Religion:
    none
    It does raise an interesting question, at what point does promoting 'diversity' start being discriminatory?

    For example, I once saw a company proudly announcing that "72% of our management positions are now held by women." Is this a very successful case of promoting diversity in the workplace, or was it very successful in the past, but is now failing and has become discriminatory again?

    My guess is that for many people there is no point at which promoting 'diversity' can become discriminatory, which is obviously problematic.
     
    #13 Augustus, Jun 7, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2019
  14. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    6,041
    Ratings:
    +4,525
    I’m all for helping the disadvantaged. But I fear that it’s swinging too far the other way, at times.
    I’m first (and a half) born in my country, mother is an immigrant. Honestly my family is too proud to accept anything from the government.
    Ideally we would like it to be based on merit. Sometimes we need groups to ensure that’s happening for people. Sometimes through good intentions, it creates a disenfranchised group who are feel threatened.

    Perhaps you could ask management how you can help, prove yourself a team player and be your own advocate.
     
  15. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,408
    Ratings:
    +4,007
    They aren't. And there is no fallacy involved, because nobody is suggested all white men should be treated the same. That's why its advocacy FOR minority groups rather than advocacy AGAINST white men. They're not the same thing.

    Except Asians are still a minority group who hold very few of the higher ranking positions compared to white men. While their positions have gotten better, it doesn't mean that white men still don't have an advantage over them in many sectors. Also, I find it very odd that you characterize this as "complaining about white people" rather than what it is: acknowledging that that there is a gender and race bias against minorities and attempting to correct that. This is not a "white person witch hunt".

    So you don't believe white men experience less prejudice and have more privilege than other groups?

    Now here's a really, really important question:

    Why do you think that's the case? What causes more black people to be poor, live in crime-ridden communities and be in single-parent households? Could it possibly be... Inequality?

    Once again, you're acting like this is a "punishment" for white people. Why do you consider it a "punishment" to have to consider the possibility of sharing a position of advantage with minority groups? That's like a child at a birthday party stealing all of the cake, and when one of the kids says that they should share the cake the parent asks "Why should be child be punished just because the other kids want cake?"

    Except that injustice:

    1) Lead to long-term economic conditions which vastly disadvantaged that group.
    2) Still has wide-reaching social, cultural and economic impact that is being felt today.
    3) Informs a society that is largely still inflicting injustice upon that individual and their group.
    4) Wasn't just faced by their "grandparents" - the Civil Rights act only passed in America in 1964, and voting rights act was past in 1965. We're talking about laws that were changed less that a single lifetime ago and whose effects are still lingering.

    You just said yourself that black people "tend to be poorer, they tend to live in communities that have a lot of crime, and because they are the majority of single parent households", so you openly acknowledge that we are not just talking about "past" injustice and inequality. We're talking about inequality and injustice that is still clearly evident and present, and at least part of that is due to America's very long history of treating as minorities as second-class citizens that was only legally repealed less than a generation ago. To deny that two-hundred years of ingrained and legally-authorized prejudice won't still have an effect today is just ridiculous.

    Then you're delusional. You're picking cherries, tasting the sweet ones and calling the entire rotten orchard fresh.

    No, but I've never argued that anybody should be disadvantaged. Again, nobody is or is suggesting "disadvantaging white people", that's not what is happening - unless you consider being made to share positions of power with other groups a "disadvantage".

    You do realize that we're talking about America specifically, right?

    Again, talking about America, buddy. Slow that horse and ride it back into the stable.

    This last sentence is quite interesting, especially since you just brought up women in positions of power.

    Tell me, who makes up 51% of the total population of the US? Women.

    Now tell me, what percentage of political office are held by women?

    Again, no it isn't. Nobody has said "the majority of white people are successful", that's not the argument being put forward. It is that "white men have an unfair advantage over minority groups". Do you not understand the difference.

    But you're arguing against a system designed to ensure that there is a more level playing field, and arguing that people born into disadvantage should just naturally be accepted not to hold positions of power.

    Again, no I'm not. Once again, you're treating "ensuring people in disadvantaged positions are given a fair shot" as "disadvantaging people who are in a position of privilege". Why do you think it's a "disadvantaging" white people to try and ensure minorities are advocated for?

    Except, as you yourself mentioned above, race is a factor in economic disparity. You really don't have to research much in order to realize the significance of race when it comes to social and economic class, and the way in which society has enforced an economic system which disproportionately negatively impacts minority groups.

    You aren't, and never will be. Enough with this weird attitude.

    You're just lying to yourself.

    So how do you propose we address social and economic disparity?

    Childish oversimplification, and any "opportunities" you're missing out on are imagined.

    No, I believe they should be accepted on merit, and if what you're saying is true then they largely are. Fact is, a lot of white men aren't accepted on merit, and a lot of black people are rejected in spite of merit. That's the way the system currently works. You seem to be okay with that and take any attempt to change it as an attack on you and your race, which seems an odd attitude to me.

    It's clear you've never lived as black person in America, then.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,375
    Ratings:
    +1,758
    Religion:
    None
    I think this is the core of the issue but it depends very much on how and why you’re complaining. The only reason you've really given here is that they’re getting something you’re not, without addressing any of the reasons given for the existence of such policies. Just moaning about them without any explanation can come across as selfish bigotry, even if that isn’t your intention.

    There are valid arguments on both sides for this and while there is undeniable lack of representation and active discrimination still occurring, there can also be too much push to achieve a perception of diversity over and above other considerations. Those can (and probably should) be discussed and debated but that’s the format it should take, not just generic and unfocused complaining.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    14,172
    Ratings:
    +9,748
    Religion:
    None

    Try and get a straight white male group started. Or better still, a group to encompass all those excluded from the other groups

    I dont know the company or its management but there is along history of straight white domination, it sounds to me like management are trying to redress the disparity with a rather narrow view of equality. While trying to appease the separate cultural identities they are placing barriers between them, not a good policy in my view
     
  18. Mindmaster

    Mindmaster Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,047
    Ratings:
    +2,601
    Religion:
    Theistic Satanist
    Heh, this is exactly my position on the issue. I never cared what color you were but whether you were a good person to me, worked hard, or otherwise positively impacted my life. But, if you want to make my color an issue -- you're ****ing with a bear I'm not going to take any **** for it or pretend like I owe you something because of it. Mostly, because I have a spine.. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,552
    Ratings:
    +8,237
    Religion:
    none
    Always worth noting that studies have shown the more you encourage people to focus on specific markers of identity like race, gender, etc. the more people discriminate along these lines.

    The more you focus on inclusive markers of identity, at the expense of exclusive ones (race, gender, etc) the less people discriminate along these lines.

    Current ideologically-based policies seem to be based around the idea that the more we get people to be hyper-aware of these markers of identity, the less we will discriminate. I am highly sceptical that this is the correct way to approach the problem.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Stevicus

    Stevicus Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    7,756
    Ratings:
    +3,741
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Well, if they'd just treat everyone equally and paid everyone the same wages, then none of this would have been necessary. This is merely a capitalist contrivance, a way of avoiding equality while still being able to (technically) claim that "we're all free and equal." It's really just a showpiece.

    The practices you're referring to in regards to your company were once known as "tokenism," although they've twisted it around and dressed it up so that it appears like something different - and something that naive liberals would accept.

    I don't know if there's anything to do about it. If you don't like the company you work for, you can always quit and find another job. I've done that many times before.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...