Va. senator calls for ending diversity programs

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_virginia_senator_diversity

Va. senator calls for ending diversity programs

RICHMOND, Va. – Virginia Sen. Jim Webb called for ending government-run diversity programs in a newspaper column Friday, saying they have disadvantaged struggling whites and hurt the cause of racial harmony.

Webb wrote an op-ed column in Friday's Wall Street Journal that said a "plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future."

:good4u:
 
It's time we end the institutionalized and state sanctioned discrimination against white males. It is an unconstitutional abomination.
 
Yurt said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_virginia_senator_diversity

Va. senator calls for ending diversity programs

RICHMOND, Va. – Virginia Sen. Jim Webb called for ending government-run diversity programs in a newspaper column Friday, saying they have disadvantaged struggling whites and hurt the cause of racial harmony.

Webb wrote an op-ed column in Friday's Wall Street Journal that said a "plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future."

:good4u:
Click to expand...


He's correct. I think that government aid should have a color blind litmus test for any aid proffered...that test should be income, not color.
 
I disagree on one particular - it is not whites who are marginalized by race-based legislation. It is the minorities themselves who are marginalized under the broad assumption that we cannot compete equally without the government giving us some kind of boost.

I am all for anti-discrimination laws - those which make it illegal to discriminate against people due to race, religion, gender, etc. I oppose any and all laws or actions of the government which favor minority races. I oppose the current trend to accept racist organizations or programs simply because they are formed by minority races.

As long as factions in government practice racism, it will promote racism in the public. That is unacceptable. As long as society accepts racism from minority groups, we will be a racist society. That, too, is unacceptable.
 
Wouldn't it be nice if the government judged people on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin?
 
Good Luck said:
I disagree on one particular - it is not whites who are marginalized by race-based legislation. It is the minorities themselves who are marginalized under the broad assumption that we cannot compete equally without the government giving us some kind of boost.

I am all for anti-discrimination laws - those which make it illegal to discriminate against people due to race, religion, gender, etc. I oppose any and all laws or actions of the government which favor minority races. I oppose the current trend to accept racist organizations or programs simply because they are formed by minority races.

As long as factions in government practice racism, it will promote racism in the public. That is unacceptable. As long as society accepts racism from minority groups, we will be a racist society. That, too, is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's whites. It's any white who ever claims to have been a victim of the these widely implemented discrimination policies. He is called every name in the book by racial revengers or disconnected "libertarians" who think we need to give up the "social issues".
 
Ice Dancer said:
He's correct. I think that government aid should have a color blind litmus test for any aid proffered...that test should be income, not color.
Click to expand...

Exactly right! There are two problems with forced diversity programs. The first is the racist angle. But the most important part, imho, is that they first have to categorize us all. I become only a straight, white male. All reference to any individual issues is completely gone.
 
WinterBorn said:
Exactly right! There are two problems with forced diversity programs. The first is the racist angle. But the most important part, imho, is that they first have to categorize us all. I become only a straight, white male. All reference to any individual issues is completely gone.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. categorization is only harmful if it used to implement "the racist angle". Im against the categorization part too, but it's not the worst part.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's time we end the institutionalized and state sanctioned discrimination against white males. It is an unconstitutional abomination.
Click to expand...

Let's start by giving women equal pay for equal work.

nationalsalaryaverage.jpg
 
christiefan915 said:
Let's start by giving women equal pay for equal work.

nationalsalaryaverage.jpg
Click to expand...

I hear this line a lot but I still don't understand it. So the government is saying they have evidence or proof that if a company (for example) is looking to hire a financial analyst and are down to choosing between a man and a woman for the position they are going to give the woman less if they hire her?
 
cawacko said:
I hear this line a lot but I still don't understand it. So the government is saying they have evidence or proof that if a company (for example) is looking to hire a financial analyst and are down to choosing between a man and a woman for the position they are going to give the woman less if they hire her?
Click to expand...


There's rarely a set figure in these negotiations, corporations usually post a range. Then the woman get the salary at the bottom of the range.
 
While I am fully supportive of equal pay for equal work, the provided chart is misleading. It averages pay without regard to other factors, such as males predominating in traditionally higher paying jobs such as construction. This gives us a skewed result. A chart limited to, for instance, managerial positions below vice president, would provide a real picture of the disparity between income. But as long as there are other factors like 100 men in construction trades for every woman and 10 women working as waitresses for every man, the differences between pay in career types will vastly overshadow the pay discrepancies (which do exist) between gender for equal work.

Another item to look at to address gender inequalities is the rate of advancement between genders in similar career types. Data I looked at recently in a print magazine clearly showed women taking an average of 20% longer to move up the ranks as men within the same job type. That, too, will show up in pay differences, though the cause is less direct (yet equally discriminatory) than simply paying the women less for the same job.
 
If corporations could higher women for less pay for the same amount of work as men, the smart corporations would only higher women (or men who will work for less), and they'd drive the male dominated ones out of business.
 
christiefan915 said:
There's rarely a set figure in these negotiations, corporations usually post a range. Then the woman get the salary at the bottom of the range.
Click to expand...

Question: If that's the case then wouldn't it follow it's the women who get the jobs? Surely companies will hire the less expensive employee.
 
Good Luck said:
While I am fully supportive of equal pay for equal work, the provided chart is misleading. It averages pay without regard to other factors, such as males predominating in traditionally higher paying jobs such as construction. This gives us a skewed result. A chart limited to, for instance, managerial positions below vice president, would provide a real picture of the disparity between income. But as long as there are other factors like 100 men in construction trades for every woman and 10 women working as waitresses for every man, the differences between pay in career types will vastly overshadow the pay discrepancies (which do exist) between gender for equal work.

Another item to look at to address gender inequalities is the rate of advancement between genders in similar career types. Data I looked at recently in a print magazine clearly showed women taking an average of 20% longer to move up the ranks as men within the same job type. That, too, will show up in pay differences, though the cause is less direct (yet equally discriminatory) than simply paying the women less for the same job.
Click to expand...

But industry doesn't tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts. Perhaps the most compelling — and potentially damning — data of all to suggest that gender has an influence comes from a 2008 study in which University of Chicago sociologist Kristen Schilt and NYU economist Matthew Wiswall examined the wage trajectories of people who underwent a sex change. Their results: even when controlling for factors like education, men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html#ixzz0unfmw8L5
 
apple0154 said:
Question: If that's the case then wouldn't it follow it's the women who get the jobs? Surely companies will hire the less expensive employee.
Click to expand...

One would think so but that's not how it shakes out. Here's an article with some good info.

Last year's tax returns may already be signed, sealed and delivered, but April 20 is the day the average American woman will finally finish earning her 2009 salary — at least, the one she would have received if she were a man. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) To highlight the need for change, since 1996 the National Committee on Pay Equity, an advocacy-group umbrella organization, has marked April 20 as Equal Pay Day. There are some signs of progress: the first bill Barack Obama signed into law as President targeted the U.S. pay gap, and the Senate is considering a bill that is meant to address underlying discrimination. But the question remains: Why has it taken so long? Nearly half a century after it became illegal to pay women less on the basis of their sex, why do American women still earn less than men?

The answer depends on whom you ask — and so does the size of the gap. Some say 77% is overly grim. One reason: it doesn't account for individual differences between workers. Once you control for factors like education and experience, notes Francine Blau — who, along with fellow Cornell economist Lawrence Kahn, published a study on the 1998 wage gap — women's earnings rise to 81% of men's. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That's partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. The most-educated swath of women, for example, gravitates toward the teaching and nursing fields. Men with comparable education become business executives, scientists, doctors and lawyers — jobs that pay significantly more. (Read about a new wave of women in Europe's boardrooms.)

Still, workers don't choose their industry in a vacuum. "Why do you think [male-dominated industries] are sex-segregated?" says Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "Very often women aren't welcome there." Real or perceived, discrimination in certain sectors could discourage women from seeking employment there. A dearth of role models might, in turn, influence the next generation of girls to gravitate toward lower-paying fields, creating an unfortunate cycle.

But industry doesn't tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts. Perhaps the most compelling — and potentially damning — data of all to suggest that gender has an influence comes from a 2008 study in which University of Chicago sociologist Kristen Schilt and NYU economist Matthew Wiswall examined the wage trajectories of people who underwent a sex change. Their results: even when controlling for factors like education, men who transitioned to women earned, on average, 32% less after the surgery. Women who became men, on the other hand, earned 1.5% more.

Skeptics who deem the 77% estimate too optimistic also note that the figure only counts women working full-time (35 hours a week or more, for the full year) and doesn't account for the fact that women are far more likely to take time off to start a family or work part-time while rearing one. Over a period of 15 years, according to a 2004 study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), a full 52% of women in the prime earning age range of 26 to 59 go through at least one full calendar year earning nothing at all, compared with just 16% of men. Those choices make a difference: over that span, female workers earn just 38% of what men make — making the wage gap twice as large as the census figure. (And despite the earnings premium that comes with greater education, women with bachelor's degrees earn less over 15 years than men with a high school diploma or less, according to the IWPR study.) (Read TIME's 1982 cover story "How Long Till Equality?")

Yet no matter how you interpret the numbers, there are a few stubborn percentage points that can't be explained away. Economists and advocates alike speculate that these are the products of slippery factors like discrimination — conscious or not. A 2000 study, for instance, famously found that after symphony orchestras introduced blind auditions, requiring musicians to perform behind a screen, women became more likely to get the gig. "I think discrimination has declined," says Cornell's Blau. "But I'm not yet seeing or believing that it's been completely eliminated."

Ensuring an end to discrimination would benefit more than just women, as advocates who resist the characterization of equal pay as a zero-sum game are quick to point out. When Iowa instituted wage adjustments to combat pay discrimination, men accounted for 41% of the beneficiaries. And considering that nearly 40% of American mothers are the primary breadwinner in their households, America's children would benefit as well. Women's wages have increased just half a penny on the dollar for the past four decades. How much longer can it possibly take for equality to arrive?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html#ixzz0ungOA0TT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top