Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky
I wouldn't say "generations". At this point, many alive experienced, while younger people are only one generation removed, if that.
You're probably right in that institutionalized discrimination is mostly gone, but individual discrimination is still a huge problem. Is an institution-level response to widespread individual discrimination inappropriate? (serious question)
|
Agreed. I was specifically thinking of the descendants of Native Americans, which are many generations removed from the injustices of the colonists and early US government.
There are still plenty of people alive today that were harmed by racist practices such as segregation. I imagine most of the people responsible for that are dead.
Your question opens up a whole other can of worms that most people would likely disagree with me on.
A just market is one in which people voluntarily offer their labor, and customers are free to engage in business with whomever they wish. This means a customer can't be forced to purchase goods or services from any particular business, and businesses can't be forced to provide their goods or services to particular people.
If someone walks into a cake shop and demands they make a cake in the shape of buttcheeks (or insert anything that could offend someone here), the shop has the intrinsic right to not serve the customer. They don't need a reason for not serving the customer, just as the customer doesn't need to provide a reason for why they want it.
Forcing the business to make the cake deprives them of their intrinsic right to voluntary labor and reinforces their discriminatory beliefs. The customer is poorly served since they don't know if the cake was spit in, or if it was created with proper attention to the work. They would be much better served by hiring someone who is excited to give them business, and dedicated to their satisfaction.
Similarly, a nightclub has the intrinsic right to charge some customers an entrance fee (men), and not charge other customers (women). The offended customers aren't required to be patrons of the business.
Discrimination can never be fought with discrimination; it simply isn't effective. The proper way to fight injustice and indecency is for society to cast shame on bad individuals, boycott them (don't buy their stuff), and be an example of just and decent behavior.
Fighting discrimination is best accomplished when society affirms that humans have intrinsic rights and worth that are not dependent on popular opinion, consensus, power, influence, or any other criteria that can be abused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
"Roughly 45 countries have introduced electoral gender quotas by law, and political parties in dozens more have adopted voluntary quotas (the United States, which ranks 85th on the IPU’s gender-equity list, is not one of them)."
I sure hope there are people that vote for who they think is the best person for the job not for the best ears or whatever.
For human resources, recruiting, etc., removing identifiable information sounds like the right thing to do.
|
Seems the US is among the remaining sane countries in this matter. People have the right to "vote" however they wish, whether that be by actual votes, purchase of goods and services, with their labor, or in other areas covered by freedom of speech.
Setting mandates for representation undermines the accomplishments of those who have truly earned their position, and potentially promotes those who have not earned their position.