5 ms·

Affirmative action is not when you fire someone to make way for a privileged class. We _have_ affirmative action because of these more extreme forms of discrim

by mapgrep 14y ago

Affirmative action is not when you fire someone to make way for a privileged class. We _have_ affirmative action because of these more extreme forms of discrimination.

sp332 14y ago
Soldiers and veterans are not privileged. That's why we got the G.I. bill for example. Edit: it seems like you also mean that firing someone cannot be affirmative action. I disagree.
- rdl 14y ago
  Vietnam-era veterans are privileged from a non-discrimination perspective in private industry. Veterans and service-disabled veterans are federally (and in some states) given privileges in contracting and some employment (police, civil service, etc.). As well, NG/Reserve service is legally protected.
  - Torgo 14y ago
    It's not privilege because it's not undeserved. They paid a price that affected their ability to compete in the workplace when they got back home. It's a form of social compensation.
    - rdl 14y ago
      I'm not saying it's deserved or not, but it's a legally protected privileged status.
  - conover 14y ago
    At least at state university system in Florida, there is something called Veterans' Preference: http://www.hr.ucf.edu/web/forms/recruitment/VeteransPreference.pdf http://www.hr.ucf.edu/web/forms/recruitment/VeteransPreferen... edit: Veterans' not Veteran's
- derleth 14y ago
  > Soldiers and veterans are not privileged. Some people think males are automatically privileged, and veterans (especially back then) are and were overwhelmingly male. I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept (that is, an idea that applies to a group does not automatically apply to every individual in that group) but there you have it.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Women were fired to make room for returning soldiers and veterans because of male privilege, not because of "soldier privilege", certainly.
ars 14y ago
> Affirmative action is not when you fire someone to make way for a privileged class. What's the difference? In one case the less-privileged person had a job for a while and made some money, in the other case they never got a job in the first place.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Actively firing a qualified employee because of bigotry versus never hiring a qualified employee because of bigotry? They're both terrible, but that poster was just clarifying the terminology.
ucee054 14y ago
"these more extreme forms of discrimination" Oh kiss my ass. In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children. It's not like the returning soldiers could marry employed women and then be house-husbands. And you know it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jpatokal 14y ago
  Except that "in those days" the vast majority of women also worked -- just not in white-collar occupations. http://letterbyafeminist.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/myth-of-non-working-woman.html http://letterbyafeminist.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/myth-of-non...
  - ucee054 14y ago
    Firstly, the feminist bullshit you linked to doesn't support your point, because it lists women's occupations like "governesses" and "middle-management" - is that supposed to be blue collar? Secondly, the period referred to in the original post was like a century later than that referred to in the feminist bullshit. Thirdly, the feminist bullshit is trying to "put to bed" the "myths" of the nuclear household, non-working woman and the child-devoted mother. You try telling the matriarchs in my family that these are "myths". And fourthly, even if the feminist bullshit were true, you still didn't address my point that the returning soldier 70 years ago couldn't get away with being a house husband. Hell, I doubt you could get away with that now. I admire how you managed to squeeze so much wrongness into just two lines of comment.
    - jpatokal 14y ago
      Your assertion was that "In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children." As the link makes clear, this has historically, in the 1950s, and in the present day only been true of upper middle class families, where the man's income was sufficient to support the entire family. Everybody else, man or woman, had to work together to scrape together enough income and outsource childcare in some form or another. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_cen... (and onward)

by mapgrep 14y ago

Affirmative action is not when you fire someone to make way for a privileged class. We _have_ affirmative action because of these more extreme forms of discrimination.

sp332 14y ago

Soldiers and veterans are not privileged. That's why we got the G.I. bill for example. Edit: it seems like you also mean that firing someone cannot be affirmative action. I disagree.

rdl 14y ago
Vietnam-era veterans are privileged from a non-discrimination perspective in private industry. Veterans and service-disabled veterans are federally (and in some states) given privileges in contracting and some employment (police, civil service, etc.). As well, NG/Reserve service is legally protected.
- Torgo 14y ago
  It's not privilege because it's not undeserved. They paid a price that affected their ability to compete in the workplace when they got back home. It's a form of social compensation.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I'm not saying it's deserved or not, but it's a legally protected privileged status.
- conover 14y ago
  At least at state university system in Florida, there is something called Veterans' Preference: http://www.hr.ucf.edu/web/forms/recruitment/VeteransPreference.pdf http://www.hr.ucf.edu/web/forms/recruitment/VeteransPreferen... edit: Veterans' not Veteran's
derleth 14y ago
> Soldiers and veterans are not privileged. Some people think males are automatically privileged, and veterans (especially back then) are and were overwhelmingly male. I think that's a misunderstanding of the concept (that is, an idea that applies to a group does not automatically apply to every individual in that group) but there you have it.
illuminate 14y ago
Women were fired to make room for returning soldiers and veterans because of male privilege, not because of "soldier privilege", certainly.

ars 14y ago

> Affirmative action is not when you fire someone to make way for a privileged class. What's the difference? In one case the less-privileged person had a job for a while and made some money, in the other case they never got a job in the first place.

illuminate 14y ago
Actively firing a qualified employee because of bigotry versus never hiring a qualified employee because of bigotry? They're both terrible, but that poster was just clarifying the terminology.

ucee054 14y ago

"these more extreme forms of discrimination" Oh kiss my ass. In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children. It's not like the returning soldiers could marry employed women and then be house-husbands. And you know it.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jpatokal 14y ago
Except that "in those days" the vast majority of women also worked -- just not in white-collar occupations. http://letterbyafeminist.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/myth-of-non-working-woman.html http://letterbyafeminist.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/myth-of-non...
- ucee054 14y ago
  Firstly, the feminist bullshit you linked to doesn't support your point, because it lists women's occupations like "governesses" and "middle-management" - is that supposed to be blue collar? Secondly, the period referred to in the original post was like a century later than that referred to in the feminist bullshit. Thirdly, the feminist bullshit is trying to "put to bed" the "myths" of the nuclear household, non-working woman and the child-devoted mother. You try telling the matriarchs in my family that these are "myths". And fourthly, even if the feminist bullshit were true, you still didn't address my point that the returning soldier 70 years ago couldn't get away with being a house husband. Hell, I doubt you could get away with that now. I admire how you managed to squeeze so much wrongness into just two lines of comment.
  - jpatokal 14y ago
    Your assertion was that "In those days the men worked, and the women stayed home to take care of the children." As the link makes clear, this has historically, in the 1950s, and in the present day only been true of upper middle class families, where the man's income was sufficient to support the entire family. Everybody else, man or woman, had to work together to scrape together enough income and outsource childcare in some form or another. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce#19th_cen... (and onward)