Spikey

Your definition of discrimination is circular.

I can see how you think the 'positive' discrimination (George Orwell would have loved that) might benefit you. Just think, had your will been done in the US, Barack Obama could never have won the presidency on merit, it would have been handed to a white feminist on a plate.

Rule fixing and networking beats hard work, open competition and merit. Just think, our private companies can be just as 'efficient' as the federal and state public services and in education where these policies have been in vogue for decades.

TurnRightThenLeft

After reading your comment, I'm won over by your argument. I think you make a really good point and honestly I'm happy to admit that I hadn't thought through the issue enough (this comment is for TLTR, just because I am willing to admit I was wrong here, it doesn't follow that I'm wrong on EVERYTHING- more to the point- I am happy to learn and revise my positions on issues- I'm young and learning and I ma thankful to people like TRTL and Pynchme). I completely agree that human rights are cultural constructs... I think that what I was getting at was that although these things are culturally contrived (and I see the dangers in suggesting otherwise) I think that human rights may be fluid constructs but we should try to acknowledge the vulnerability of that constuctedness and try to defend against it by extending and solidifying those rights. I don't know if that will make sense to you- but I see your point, and it is the very fluidity of rights, which in my mind SHOULD be possessed by all, which makes me uncomfortable in this discussion...hmmm... given me something to muse about :-) I've also enjoyed reading your other comments here. Thanks. n

Hi Cornflower,

Just wanted to slip in a couple of points about discrimination that I don't think have been made yet.

1. I am not a great advocate of things like quotas and such (ie: 'positive discrimination') - like you and Spikey my ideal is that people progress on merit.

However I think there is a case for such action as an interim measure to redress inequalities that have resulted from long term discrimination.

People need to have an opportunity in such positions to show that they can do it (or not). In any case, even when hired under some quota or similar method; they still need the required qualifications.

I think we need a term other than 'negative discrimination'. One that expresses the fact that existing inequalities are being redressed.

2. Many men get into positions of power and into certain occupations not by merit but exactly by networking and by being mentored and buddied into position.

A few years ago I read some really interesting articles collected into a book. I'm sorry I can't recall the title and such. One of them was written by someone in the public service and outlined the many ways that women and other 'unwanteds' are excluded. These included things like emailing information around to all the males in the office but not to females. Other ways are challenging everything that women say in meetings and demanding evidence (flowcharts; graphs) then dismissing them; while accepting any utterance by a male as a piece of proven wisdom; by taking up lots of airspace in meetings by talking over the female's voice and so on. None of those and similar practices attribute merit where it might be due; but actively operate to discredit.

3. Men have always been welcomed into non-traditional roles like nursing.

Cornflower,

I think you need to read posts more carefully before bursting back with a response. In other words, be more discriminating in your choice of argument.

You claim that my definition of discrimination is circular. How so, since I didn't define discrimination as a single entity? There are many types of discrimination, including discrimination against women and discrimination against blacks and discrimination against men and against whites. Etc etc.

The smart thing to do is to discriminate among these various forms of discrimination as to which are unfair and which are justified in some rational way.

So I reject as nonsensical your comment: " Just think, had your will been done in the US, Barack Obama could never have won the presidency on merit, it would have been handed to a white feminist on a plate. " I have never argued (and never would) that in such a matter as electing a President of the USA that men should be discriminated against. Your proposition that Barak Obama would have been discriminated out is a figment of your anti-feminist imagination. You have set up a false competition between forms of discrimination to justify your anti-feminism. Not very clever. Try again please.

Pynchme

Oh wow, did your little precis about the book resonate with me!.

When I first started as a journalist "hard" news was, of course, men's territory. All of the tactics you mention were used but I thought I was being paranoid. Even when articles I'd written were printed with someone else's by-line I genuinely used to accept it was through error! Finally, a male mate who was leaving and I'd got friendly with (along with his gorgeous girlfriend) not only let me into the secret but armed me with counter tactics.

Went free-lance finally and always used to write using only my initials and surname: the way I signed everything. When a particular magazine found out I was female and they' spent a lot of time promoting my stuff they were furious, told me I'd deliberately decieved them, that I'd therefore been paid too much for a woman.

From every billboard and newstand in the country a huge banner headline labelling me The Ball Breaker appeared the day after they found out!

Now in acadaemia exactly the same tactics are being used all over again.

I nearly wet myself laughing every time someone posts about how all the universities are controlled by feminists and work places are now "feminized"!

Spikey

Discrimination has one meaning, but not for you it seems. That you are able to flex its meaning according to your prejudices means that you have a rather lot in common with Humpty Dumpty (see previous quote).

Of course the Victorian government's proposed 'positive discrimination' is stereotyping and discrimination on the basis of gender and race. How can you support such stereotyping, which even despite your jaundiced opinion of men must ring untrue. Honestly, how many 'dominant white men' do you know? About as many 'bludging Aboriginals' or 'neurotic women' I would bet. Why should any group be singled out for abuse and discrimination?

Worse, the discrimination will be enshrined in law to: "Allow the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed. Business and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint has not been received."

What sort of a mad law convicts without evidence of a complaint, where an 'unlawful act (according to the new legislation) was 'likely to occur', not just in cases where discrimination has taken place?

Pynchme
"..there is a case for such action as an interim measure to redress inequalities that have resulted from long term discrimination."

No, bad laws are bad laws. It is discrimination and it drives a wedge in society. After decades, the affirmative action policies in the federal public service have never been withdrawn.

"Many men get into positions of power and into certain occupations not by merit but exactly by networking and by being mentored and buddied into position."

No, SOME do as do SOME women and the vast majority of men and women object to it. There are rules and laws against it.

"Men have always been welcomed into non-traditional roles like nursing."

Why then the low numbers? Here is a re-worded quote to suit the occasion, 'Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said females had "been the big success story in nursing and education" and consequently an Act was being passed to positively discriminate against white women'.