PDA

View Full Version : Remember: discrimination is OK...


bigred
12th February 2010, 08:10 AM
So long as it goes against the evil white male :rolleyes: (Read statement @ the bottom)

http://www.peoplenetwork.com/

Cleon
12th February 2010, 08:19 AM
TPN is a Certified Woman Owned Business and a member of DOD, MFBE, TAG, GTA, NAWBO, WDBE/DBE. We are proud supporters of United Way and Techbridge.

Where's the discrimination? :confused:

Ashles
12th February 2010, 08:19 AM
So long as it goes against the evil white male :rolleyes: (Read statement @ the bottom)

http://www.peoplenetwork.com/



TPN is a Certified Woman Owned Business


There's a certificate for that? Why?

Skeptical Greg
12th February 2010, 08:20 AM
Can you link to a specific item ?

Your link doesn't really hold any clues about what you may be referring to ...

Ashles
12th February 2010, 08:23 AM
Where's the discrimination? :confused:

I think it is a little dodgy for a recruitment company to be implying a more favourable approach to women.

They're not doing anything I would see as overtly discriminatory as it stands, but if there were a tribunal where a man claimed he was not hired solely on grounds of his gender then I would have thought a statement such as the one at the bottom of that webpage would make any defence a little more difficult for the company.

ravdin
12th February 2010, 08:25 AM
This is a crappy website. But how is it discriminatory?

Ashles
12th February 2010, 08:28 AM
This is a crappy website.


I really don't get that website - when I click on "Search available jobs" it takes me to a screen that simply has links to two completely different websites.

Cleon
12th February 2010, 08:40 AM
I think it is a little dodgy for a recruitment company to be implying a more favourable approach to women.

They're not doing anything I would see as overtly discriminatory as it stands, but if there were a tribunal where a man claimed he was not hired solely on grounds of his gender then I would have thought a statement such as the one at the bottom of that webpage would make any defence a little more difficult for the company.

How so? All it's doing is saying that it's a Woman-Owned Business, which would probably be obvious from meeting the proprietor. It's probably a one-person business she runs out of her house.

Donal
12th February 2010, 08:40 AM
They feel some of their clients would be attracted to a woman owned business. They just use it as a selling point. It's a little silly, but not discriminatory.

Ashles
12th February 2010, 08:44 AM
How so? All it's doing is saying that it's a Woman-Owned Business, which would probably be obvious from meeting the proprietor. It's probably a one-person business she runs out of her house.

In a tribunal you would be amazed at what can be used against the company.

I'm not saying they are being descriminatory, simply they might make life a little harder for themselves with such a statement should a gender tribunal occur.

But I guess if they get more applicants as a result of appearing woman-friendly then they would probably consider this a very tiny risk not worth worrying about.

Skeptic
12th February 2010, 08:48 AM
(Shrug) It's odd that pointing out a business is "woman owned" is a selling point, but why is this discrimination against anybody? It's not as if only women are allowed to own businesses, or that the fact that this woman opened her own private business somehow unfairly infringes on the rights of others.

rwguinn
12th February 2010, 08:49 AM
I think it is a little dodgy for a recruitment company to be implying a more favourable approach to women.

They're not doing anything I would see as overtly discriminatory as it stands, but if there were a tribunal where a man claimed he was not hired solely on grounds of his gender then I would have thought a statement such as the one at the bottom of that webpage would make any defence a little more difficult for the company.

They feel some of their clients would be attracted to a woman owned business. They just use it as a selling point. It's a little silly, but not discriminatory.

The certification simply means that the ownership is female, and has been verified as such by a government agency.
This gets the business a few extra points when bidding on government contracts, as does "minority certified", "Veteran Certified ownership". It does NOT mean that they can discriminate against anyone in any way.
I once worked for such a company.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 08:53 AM
Business ownership is one of the real fronts in gender discrimination. Traditionally women have had problems receiving small business loans or executive level positions when competeing against men of equal experience, credit history and educational background. It has been noticed that even in developed countries such as the US the market for small business growth among women is relatively unspent when compared to the same market for men. Encouraging women to get into the game so to speak by approval of loans has had promising boosts to economic activity.

Periodically a business woman's advocacy group will arise in response to a group that advocates primarily for men as part of its charter or in practice. The business club that Sonia Sotomayor belonged to in California for instance is an all women's club that seeks to provide the same services to women that the much older men's only club provides to men.

Frankly if you want more information on the Woman Owned Business label I suggest looking here: http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/federalgovernmentcontracts/a/self-cert-wob.htm
and here
http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/federalgovernmentcontracts/a/wobconprog.htm

bigred
12th February 2010, 09:51 AM
IMO discrimination is pretty clear when they say "TPN is a Certified Woman Owned Business" (although I hear you - perhaps "bigotry" would have been better) - ie they are exclusively and pointedly owned ONLY by woman (and "certified" as such - wtfo?). Imagine the hissy fit if a company owned only by men made a point of saying so, never mind "certified."

Serpent, good post, thx. I'm just sick to death of the double standards BS so rampant today. Pardon the rant.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2010, 09:53 AM
Where's the discrimination? :confused:

Certified Woman Owned Business

What bigred seems to be pointing to is official, gender based discrimination.

Undesired Walrus
12th February 2010, 09:54 AM
So long as it goes against the evil white male :rolleyes: (Read statement @ the bottom)

http://www.peoplenetwork.com/

Where's the skin colour involved?

bigred
12th February 2010, 09:57 AM
Where's the skin colour involved?
There isn't. That was a general statement; pardon any confusion there.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 10:00 AM
Actually, a Woman Owned Business does not have to be owned ONLY by women. The minimum requriement is 51% of the ownership is in the hands of women.

Also, there are businesses that are very proudly male in their ownership and focus. IGN would loose a bit of their credibility in a focus on "Things Guys Like" if that was owned and ran by women. That was in fact a criticism lobbed at Playboy Enterprises when Christie Hefner was CEO.

Cleon
12th February 2010, 10:16 AM
Certified Woman Owned Business

What bigred seems to be pointing to is official, gender based discrimination.

Then you and bigred are working with a different definition of "discrimination" than the rest of us.

Pointing out that the business is owned by a woman is hardly discriminatory.

Cleon
12th February 2010, 10:17 AM
IMO discrimination is pretty clear when they say "TPN is a Certified Woman Owned Business" (although I hear you - perhaps "bigotry" would have been better) - ie they are exclusively and pointedly owned ONLY by woman (and "certified" as such - wtfo?). Imagine the hissy fit if a company owned only by men made a point of saying so, never mind "certified."

Serpent, good post, thx. I'm just sick to death of the double standards BS so rampant today. Pardon the rant.

So they're not actually discriminating against anyone, you just don't like the fact that they're pointing out that the business is owned by women (or, more likely, a woman).

ravdin
12th February 2010, 10:30 AM
It's a bit of an odd standard that the company advertises itself as women-owned as a selling point- I also own a company and I don't have "Certified Men Owned Business" on my website.

The discrimination aspect escapes me, though. Is there a jobs listing page with "No Men Need Apply" that I'm missing?

Fnord
12th February 2010, 10:33 AM
Discrimination is OK ... So long as it goes against the evil white male...

Or you you invoke the name or will of your favourite deity when committing an act of discrimination. Otherwise, the "Conservative, Christian, wealthy, middle-aged, white male" model does seem to hold.

Fnord
12th February 2010, 10:36 AM
... The discrimination aspect escapes me, though. Is there a jobs listing page with "No Men Need Apply" that I'm missing?

Egg Donor
Pole-Dancer
Surrogate Mother

... and ...

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model

(These are not sure things, nor are they explicitely stated, but they seem to be the way to bet.)

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 10:37 AM
The certification simply means that the ownership is female, and has been verified as such by a government agency.
This gets the business a few extra points when bidding on government contracts, as does "minority certified", "Veteran Certified ownership". It does NOT mean that they can discriminate against anyone in any way.
I once worked for such a company.

No, it just means that, as you say, the government will discriminate against those who do not have such a certification because they happen to be the wrong sex or colour.

So I think it is fair to say that the existence of such a certification is evidence of discrimination. If there was no discrimination, why bother with certification?

rwguinn
12th February 2010, 10:53 AM
No, it just means that, as you say, the government will discriminate against those who do not have such a certification because they happen to be the wrong sex or colour.

So I think it is fair to say that the existence of such a certification is evidence of discrimination. If there was no discrimination, why bother with certification?
Check with the EEOC.
It's all part of the PC movement, and "Making up for past discrimination"

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 10:59 AM
No, it just means that, as you say, the government will discriminate against those who do not have such a certification because they happen to be the wrong sex or colour.

So I think it is fair to say that the existence of such a certification is evidence of discrimination. If there was no discrimination, why bother with certification?

I think this is least a fair criticism. Is mandating (or the case of the WBO certification allowing project managers to mandate at their discretion) an improvement in equitable practices a fair way of addressing discrimination? Personally I believe it is. This does not mean that such practices should remain in effect for all time, or that exactly proportionate numbers need be met. Keep in mind the WBO program is not a iron mandate but a guideline to achieve 5% of government contracts being awarded to Women Owned Businesses. The most recent numbers I found place the level at 3.8% in 2007. In 2002 the number non-farm businesses owned by women was 28.2% http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/02/womensof.html

If there is an arguement that discrimination is happening against women owned businesses less than men owned businesses, I am curious to hear it.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2010, 11:00 AM
Then you and bigred are working with a different definition of "discrimination" than the rest of us.

Pointing out that the business is owned by a woman is hardly discriminatory.
Funny, I point out what I think bigred has an issue with, and you then decide that it is me who has the issue with it. Nice kneejerk problem you have there, Cleon.

Cleon, I think you might want to look into a few American Federal Laws about the advantages that accrue, in government contract bidding alone, to being a special case, which includes the legal category "Woman Owned Business." It is a law. See a few posts up, from Fallen Serpent, what some of the definitions are. Another special case is "Veteran Owned Business" with the SBA, as is "Minority Owned Business" and so on.

When a group is discriminated for, in law, it is still discrimination, but is apparently palatable for one reason or another. (See also Affirmative Action). I was offered a contingent hire with a Woman Owned Business three years ago, but since they didn't win the bid, a minority owned business did, one that was also a Woman Owned business (a woman whose husband ran the company) I didn't get the job.

This matter of legal discrimination is what bigred appears to be objecting to.

You are now kindly invited to get your sorry little kneejerk our of your mouth.

DR

pgwenthold
12th February 2010, 11:05 AM
Check with the EEOC.
It's all part of the PC movement, and "Making up for past discrimination"

Not really, it's a part about equal opportunity.

When we were buying lab equipment (using government money), we had to get a minimum number of quotes, and at least one had to be from a woman or minority owned company. We didn't have to buy from them, but we had to at least allow them the opportunity to bid. We weren't allowed to just make behind the scenes deals with our buddies.

You call that PC, I call it real capitalism, with the assurance that everyone is allowed to participate and can't be kept out because of race or sex.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2010, 11:13 AM
Not really, it's a part about equal opportunity.

When we were buying lab equipment (using government money), we had to get a minimum number of quotes, and at least one had to be from a woman or minority owned company. We didn't have to buy from them, but we had to at least allow them the opportunity to bid. We weren't allowed to just make behind the scenes deals with our buddies.

You call that PC, I call it real capitalism, with the assurance that everyone is allowed to participate and can't be kept out because of race or sex.
I edited out my first comment, and will make a different one:

SBA is a form of discrimination that has been deemed palatable, and even productive. In this case, it is discrimination for small companies in the government bidding arena.

DR

Skeptical Greg
12th February 2010, 11:26 AM
Not really, it's a part about equal opportunity.

When we were buying lab equipment (using government money), we had to get a minimum number of quotes, and at least one had to be from a woman or minority owned company. We didn't have to buy from them, but we had to at least allow them the opportunity to bid. We weren't allowed to just make behind the scenes deals with our buddies.

You call that PC, I call it real capitalism, with the assurance that everyone is allowed to participate and can't be kept out because of race or sex.



What if there were no bids from a WOB or MOB ?

Equal opportunity is really not .. It's about giving preferential treatment to some who were denied opportunities in the past; and in doing so, you discriminate against those who do not get the preferential treatment.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 11:47 AM
What if there were no bids from a WOB or MOB ?Then a white male business gets the contract. As per usual even when WOB and MOB place bids.

Equal opportunity is really not .. It's about giving preferential treatment to some who were denied opportunities in the past; and in doing so, you discriminate against those who do not get the preferential treatment.This assumes that denial of opportunities for the those groups now receiving preferential treatment as ceased. Which I would disagree is the case. I would agree that affirmative action and similar mandates need to be examined from time to time to see if their usefullness has passed and are unnecessary. That happened in the California college system. Once these rules began to phase out attendance shifted towards less whites and less men in the California college system than existed under the rules. Saying these rules are unfair assumes that rules will not change to accomodate different groups as the times change.

pgwenthold
12th February 2010, 11:52 AM
What if there were no bids from a WOB or MOB ?


We would not be allowed to buy the piece unless it could be shown that there were no such businesses. But we could always find someone.

Granted, they weren't the businesses that we usually considered for our projects, but then, that is sort of the point of the restrictions.



Equal opportunity is really not .. It's about giving preferential treatment to some who were denied opportunities in the past; and in doing so, you discriminate against those who do not get the preferential treatment.

Read what I wrote and show me where anyone got preferential treatment. The only preferential treatment is that they had to be considered. Of course, the reason is because it has been found that if people aren't forced to consider women and minorty owned businesses, then they will discriminate against them.

We were not prevented from dealing with a non-minority or male-owned business, and could buy from them if they provided the best bid. The only thing we were required to do was to allow WOB and MOBs to participate.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 11:55 AM
Being forced to consider is deemed preferential treatment by some. I would have difficulty argueing the against that point most self. For instance, if I was forced to consider someone's relatives when hiring for a position I would consider that preferential treatment even if there was no consequence nor reward to actually hiring them. Consideration is a form of preference.

pgwenthold
12th February 2010, 12:24 PM
Being forced to consider is deemed preferential treatment by some.

Yeah, it's just like how christians are persecuted because they aren't allowed to discriminate against gay people. Some people consider that "special treatment," for homosexuals.

Damn women, get preferential treatment because they aren't allowed to be shut out of the marketplace.

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 12:27 PM
But we could always find someone.

Read what I wrote and show me where anyone got preferential treatment.

How many non-WOB/MOB did you make the effort to go out and find request that they submitted a bid?

My guess is none, so an identical business to those you did seek out (except that the owner has the wrong genitalia) would not be sought out by a potential customer. Can you really not see the preferential treatment?

rwguinn
12th February 2010, 12:28 PM
How many non-WOB/MOB did you make the effort to go out and find request that they submitted a bid?

My guess is none, so an identical business to those you did seek out (except that the owner has the wrong genitalia) would not be sought out by a potential customer. Can you really not see the preferential treatment?
no.

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 12:32 PM
The most recent numbers I found place the level at 3.8% in 2007. In 2002 the number non-farm businesses owned by women was 28.2% http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/02/womensof.html

And when you adjusted these figures to correct for the relative size of businesses that won government contracts, what happened?

How many were awarded to businesses owned by men (which would meet the certification criteria if the sexes were reversed)? My guess is that nobody knows because nobody bothered to count. So where did the 5% target come from? Is it justifiable?

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 12:33 PM
no.

OK - although I suspect the reality is that you can but don't care about it.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 12:35 PM
Yeah, it's just like how christians are persecuted because they aren't allowed to discriminate against gay people. Some people consider that "special treatment," for homosexuals.I'm not claiming it results in persecution of men. I think that is just silly. I am just saying let us not play the semantics game even if others are. I personally don't mind discriminating against murderer's freedom to murder another. Discrimination has such a negative context now, but it still holds its meaning.

Damn women, get preferential treatment because they aren't allowed to be shut out of the marketplace.Not, it's just the boardroom we are supposed to shut them out of. If they are shut out of the marketplace how are they supposed to pick up dinner?

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 12:43 PM
And when you adjusted these figures to correct for the relative size of businesses that won government contracts, what happened?I actually do not know what this means or how to do that. Please inform me and I will attempt. Though I have a feeling there are some inconsistencies in these reports that makes them difficult to link more solidly than I already did in a non-educated way.

How many were awarded to businesses owned by men (which would meet the certification criteria if the sexes were reversed)?96.2% perhaps? Though the WOB is a specific term and there is no equivalent term that I know of that focuses on primary male ownership. Since a business can be even completely owned by a woman and not labelled WOB it is possibely and even likely a few women owned businesses have received government contracts. My guess is that nobody knows because nobody bothered to count.I have not dug deeply to know. That would not surprise me if this was true or false. So where did the 5% target come from? Is it justifiable?I do not know the answer to either of those. I will see if I can find out though.

Skeptic Ginger
12th February 2010, 12:48 PM
So long as it goes against the evil white male :rolleyes: (Read statement @ the bottom)

http://www.peoplenetwork.com/These labels get one an advantage in some government bid contracts. The problem is how do you level the playing field when people are climbing on from different starting levels? Do you ignore the current situation and only work to even things up starting with new babies born today, waiting for them to grow up with equal opportunities?

Skeptic Ginger
12th February 2010, 12:52 PM
There's a certificate for that? Why?Government contracts.

I just filled out some forms as a vendor for the U of WA and it asked if I had those certifications. I don't because I only heard about them when I saw the form. But I am a sole proprietor and female so clearly there's no certification needed to prove it. There have been a number of contractors, however, who've claimed to be woman or minority owned when they weren't so the certifications must have arisen to challenge the fake listings.

pgwenthold
12th February 2010, 12:53 PM
How many non-WOB/MOB did you make the effort to go out and find request that they submitted a bid?

Generally 2.

We would find a vendor that could get us the thing we wanted, and then we would have to go search out 3 additional vendors, with at least one of the four being either MOB or WOB.

rwguinn
12th February 2010, 12:59 PM
OK - although I suspect the reality is that you can but don't care about it.
You're right.
I don't have a problem with the governments letting contracts giving the (generally) small businesses run by minorities/women a leg up--if they are qualified to fulfill the contract requirements.

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:04 PM
I actually do not know what this means or how to do that. Please inform me and I will attempt. Though I have a feeling there are some inconsistencies in these reports that makes them difficult to link more solidly than I already did in a non-educated way.

Government tend to buy from big businesses a lot more than small businesses. Many have schemes to try and make their contracts more accessible to small businesses to counteract this.

You quoted a figure that 3.8% are sourced from WOB. And a figure that 28.2% of businesses are owned by women. I assume this was intended to try and show that the figure sourced from WOB is lower than would be expected if there was no discrimination against them.

Several major problems with this:

The definitions are not the same - not all businesses owned by women will be WOB for these purposes.

There is a failure to adjust for other factors that may be relevant. The example I chose was size. I strongly suspect that most businesses that can be identified as businesses owned by women are small (in relative terms) - the bigger a business gets the less likely it is to be owned by a small number of individuals (as opposed to other companies, pension funds, investment businesses, private equity or simply individuals who you have no way to know if they are women or not). If government buys mainly from large business, and most businesses owned by women are small, then you cannot claim discrimination simply because they appear underrepresented.

If there is no evidence collected on MOB, how do you know they are not even more underrepresented then WOB? Where is the evidence to indicate that WOB are even underrepresented?

96.2% perhaps? Though the WOB is a specific term and there is no equivalent term that I know of that focuses on primary male ownership. Since a business can be even completely owned by a woman and not labelled WOB it is possibely and even likely a few women owned businesses have received government contracts. I have not dug deeply to know. That would not surprise me if this was true or false. I do not know the answer to either of those. I will see if I can find out though.

You really think it is anywhere near 96.2%? You don't think that the majority of government contracts are won by huge companies which are mainly owned by pension funds, insurance companies etc?

That's the problem when only certain things get measured - they become the only things that matter.

Fnord
12th February 2010, 01:06 PM
... The problem is how do you level the playing field when people are climbing on from different starting levels? Do you ignore the current situation and only work to even things up starting with new babies born today, waiting for them to grow up with equal opportunities?

Pure merit-based employment emphasizes economy, effectiveness and efficiency in job performance, and does not concern itself with who gets the job done, what they look like, believe in or have sex with. What skills a person starts with and develops as they gain experience has a greater determination in their success rate than any other factor.

Affirmative Action programs place undue emphasis on who is doing the job, what they look like, believe in and have sex with rather than on how well the job itself is being done. Why learn anything that would make you a better worker when there is some law somewhere that says you get increasingly greater preferential treatment for each minority qualification you can claim?

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:07 PM
Generally 2.

We would find a vendor that could get us the thing we wanted, and then we would have to go search out 3 additional vendors, with at least one of the four being either MOB or WOB.

You didn't have to advertise or invite bids? That's amazingly bad procurement practice.

And only chase up a MOB/WOB bid if one wasn't obtained through the normal system?

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:08 PM
You're right.
I don't have a problem with the governments letting contracts giving the (generally) small businesses run by minorities/women a leg up--if they are qualified to fulfill the contract requirements.

So you are quite happy for them to discriminate against small businesses not run by minorities/women, even --if they are qualified to fulfill the contract requirements.

Are you willing to admit you can see the discrimination, but that you just don't care about it?

And it is discrimination on the basis of sex, not business size.

pgwenthold
12th February 2010, 01:10 PM
You didn't have to advertise or invite bids? That's amazingly bad procurement practice.


Depended on the size of the project.

Fnord
12th February 2010, 01:13 PM
We generally don't bid out a project if we already have an open purchase order with an appropriate vendor or supplier. It's only when a project involves government funding or requires new products or services that we have to solicit for bids. And that is when all this AA/EOC bush lit comes in. Gach! The paperwork alone ... :mad:

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:14 PM
Depended on the size of the project.

OK, makes more sense.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 01:28 PM
Government tend to buy from big businesses a lot more than small businesses. Many have schemes to try and make their contracts more accessible to small businesses to counteract this.This sounds correct from what I know of it.

You quoted a figure that 3.8% are sourced from WOB. And a figure that 28.2% of businesses are owned by women. I assume this was intended to try and show that the figure sourced from WOB is lower than would be expected if there was no discrimination against them.

Several major problems with this:

The definitions are not the same - not all businesses owned by women will be WOB for these purposes.

There is a failure to adjust for other factors that may be relevant. The example I chose was size. I strongly suspect that most businesses that can be identified as businesses owned by women are small (in relative terms) - the bigger a business gets the less likely it is to be owned by a small number of individuals (as opposed to other companies, pension funds, investment businesses, private equity or simply individuals who you have no way to know if they are women or not). If government buys mainly from large business, and most businesses owned by women are small, then you cannot claim discrimination simply because they appear underrepresented.All a fair criticism of the quotes I created. I was not trying to be dishonest, I did not mean "found" implied "studied" in my quotations. I did quick searches and they should be examined as such.

If there is no evidence collected on MOB, how do you know they are not even more underrepresented then WOB? Where is the evidence to indicate that WOB are even underrepresented?I'll need time to study through this link but here: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11245&page=9 This implies that a study was required with the implementation of the WOB program and was done. I have only skimmed through so this may turn out to be a false or dead end. Apparently someone in government actually had the same thought that you did.



You really think it is anywhere near 96.2%? You don't think that the majority of government contracts are won by huge companies which are mainly owned by pension funds, insurance companies etc?Actually I don't think that number is correct. I even mentioned it likely wasn't but I admit I was unware that the WOB designation was actually limited to small businesses. Which makes sense considering the complex ownership of a number of large businesses. In fact.... http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/index.html
23% of all government buying targeted small firms. That obviously does not mean that 23% of all government contracts went to small firms but it does appear the beginnings of some actual research is out there. It may have already been done by the government. We are starting to get in over my head barring finding the actual studies however. I will see what I can find.

That's the problem when only certain things get measured - they become the only things that matter.Agreed, I am not convinced that this is the only thing that is measured however. I remember in high school people use to rail against college loans to women being sexist against men. I was one of them. Then I discovered that the lack of men in college was of concern to the government and colleges, though not funding. I no longer have the reports at my fingertips but studies found income level and race being accounted that men had an easier time securing funding but even so men were less likely to pursue college. Colleges do run campaigns attempting to secure more male clients. That certainly changed my mind.

bigred
12th February 2010, 01:32 PM
Funny, I point out what I think bigred has an issue with, and you then decide that it is me who has the issue with it. Nice kneejerk problem you have there, Cleon.

Cleon, I think you might want to look into a few American Federal Laws about the advantages that accrue, in government contract bidding alone, to being a special case, which includes the legal category "Woman Owned Business." It is a law. See a few posts up, from Fallen Serpent, what some of the definitions are. Another special case is "Veteran Owned Business" with the SBA, as is "Minority Owned Business" and so on.

When a group is discriminated for, in law, it is still discrimination, but is apparently palatable for one reason or another. (See also Affirmative Action). I was offered a contingent hire with a Woman Owned Business three years ago, but since they didn't win the bid, a minority owned business did, one that was also a Woman Owned business (a woman whose husband ran the company) I didn't get the job.

This matter of legal discrimination is what bigred appears to be objecting to.

You are now kindly invited to get your sorry little kneejerk our of your mouth.

DR
Thanks for saying it better than I did/would.

It's extremely unlikely that they "just happen" to be entirely female owned. It was by design, meaning clear-cut sexual discrimination.

I guess what really galls me is that it seems to me a disturbing and growing number of people don't really want equality. They love spewing self-righteous, hypocritical ramblings about it, but all the while endorse something else entirely. Again pardon the rant, I'm just sick as hell of it.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 01:42 PM
I guess what really galls me is that it seems to me a disturbing and growing number of people don't really want equality. They love spewing self-righteous, hypocritical ramblings about it, but all the while endorse something else entirely. Again pardon the rant, I'm just sick as hell of it.

I don't think this is a growing number. I feel confident in suspecting being comfortable with inequality is a standard part of human selfishness. That this may have been a contributing factor in our socieities for quite a bit of our history.

Personally I have experienced discrimination for being a man, and run into racist comments for being white. Even so, I have witnessed magnitudes more discrimination against women and the same with witnessing racism against other races. I think we have quite bit of distance to go before it is time to get up in arms about white men not getting a fair break in the US. It may happen, history has shown that discrimination can easily be flipped as circumstances change and power shifts hands. My experiences of course only encompass one perspective and one data set. If someone brings to me more comprehensive evidence that the situation has actually shifted to white men being disadvantaged I am open to examining the evidence and adjusting my opinion as has happened in the past. I feel pretty confident in my current world view so highly doubt I'm going to be shown white men being heavily disadvantaged over women and minorities, but I am not so arrogant as to discount the possibility I am wrong. ;)

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:47 PM
This sounds correct from what I know of it.

All a fair criticism of the quotes I created. I was not trying to be dishonest, I did not mean "found" implied "studied" in my quotations. I did quick searches and they should be examined as such.

No implication of dishonesty intended. Apologies if it came over that way.

Actually I don't think that number is correct. I even mentioned it likely wasn't but I admit I was unware that the WOB designation was actually limited to small businesses. Which makes sense considering the complex ownership of a number of large businesses.

I'm not sure it is, but I have a strong suspicion that whether it is limited or not, in practice it will mainly be small businesses that have the designation.

Jaggy Bunnet
12th February 2010, 01:51 PM
I feel pretty confident in my current world view so highly doubt I'm going to be shown white men being heavily disadvantaged over women and minorities, but I am not so arrogant as to discount the possibility I am wrong. ;)

This is where I think we disagree. Just because one GROUP tends to do well compared to others, does not justify (in my opinion) discriminating against individuals within that group.

Why not just give the best person the job or the best quote the contract? No need to know the persons sex/colour/race or who owns the business quoting.

The Fallen Serpent
12th February 2010, 02:13 PM
This is where I think we disagree. Just because one GROUP tends to do well compared to others, does not justify (in my opinion) discriminating against individuals within that group.I agree that just because one group tends to do well compared to others does not necessitate discrimination to resolve inequality. However I feel we need to examine and seek out if lack of opportunity and discrimination is creating these inequalities in the first place, and if so help rectify the situation.

Why not just give the best person the job or the best quote the contract? No need to know the persons sex/colour/race or who owns the business quoting.This presumes that there is often one best person for a job. My personal experience in both being interviewed and interviewing leads me to believe this is not true. Often times there are multiple. This also requires the assumption that people do not take racial and gender into account already. I know of people who refuse to hire even more qualified women for a job because they have convinced themselves that it is impossible for a man to do the job worse. The same applies with races.

Skeptic Ginger
12th February 2010, 07:34 PM
Pure merit-based employment emphasizes economy, effectiveness and efficiency in job performance, and does not concern itself with who gets the job done, what they look like, believe in or have sex with. What skills a person starts with and develops as they gain experience has a greater determination in their success rate than any other factor.

Affirmative Action programs place undue emphasis on who is doing the job, what they look like, believe in and have sex with rather than on how well the job itself is being done. Why learn anything that would make you a better worker when there is some law somewhere that says you get increasingly greater preferential treatment for each minority qualification you can claim?The real unleveled playing field is not the ideal level version as you seem to be describing it.

Skeptic Ginger
12th February 2010, 07:36 PM
We generally don't bid out a project if we already have an open purchase order with an appropriate vendor or supplier. It's only when a project involves government funding or requires new products or services that we have to solicit for bids. And that is when all this AA/EOC bush lit comes in. Gach! The paperwork alone ... :mad:Now in my case, my government clients put in for no-bid special contract for my services because the people who might bid don't have the same expertise my clients believe I have. Very little paperwork. :)


But I'm also a very inexpensive government expense and have a very uncomplicated specialized service. The No-bid contracts in the millions are much too easily subject to cronyism and other unethical influence. So I'm not sure all the rules and regs in the bidding and contracting is a bad thing.

applecorped
12th February 2010, 08:04 PM
Cleon?

Redtail
12th February 2010, 08:13 PM
So long as it goes against the evil white male :rolleyes: (Read statement @ the bottom)

http://www.peoplenetwork.com/

Dear GOD! When will people finally be fair to white males and not mention the fact that they aren't white males!?!?!?!?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Hokulele
12th February 2010, 08:14 PM
The hell?

Before I took my current job, I was a minority/woman-owned business (sole proprietor). As such, whenever I bid on or applied for a contract issued either by the US government or a direct supplier to the government, I filled out a form that indicated such (never having applied for 8a status).

It had nothing to do with whether or not I was selected to fulfill the contract, that usually went to the lowest bidder with all that implies, but that the government/supplier could document that they weren't being discriminatory.

Way to read this entirely backwards...

applecorped
12th February 2010, 08:15 PM
Dear GOD! When will people finally be fair to white males and not mention the fact that they aren't white males!?!?!?!?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!


Read again....slower.:rolleyes:

Hokulele
12th February 2010, 08:25 PM
Read again....slower.:rolleyes:


Sure, I mean if you really wanted to rail against discriminatory practices in government contracting, you would all be kicking Ted Stevens around. Right?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/lawmakers_cast_a_critical_eye.html

Redtail
12th February 2010, 08:26 PM
Read again....slower.:rolleyes:

Read for comprehension... better.:rolleyes:

applecorped
12th February 2010, 08:26 PM
Sad.

Redtail
12th February 2010, 08:28 PM
Sad.

Agreed.

applecorped
12th February 2010, 08:30 PM
Good. Acceptance is the first step.

Hokulele
12th February 2010, 08:33 PM
Good. Acceptance is the first step.


Sure, but acceptance was typically based on the bid value, not the gender of the bidder.

I can only think of one time I was awarded a sole-bid contract, and that had more to do with my qualifications than the content of my underwear.

Seriously, non-issue.

Redtail
12th February 2010, 08:40 PM
Good. Acceptance is the first step.

Ok, what mistake did I make?

Hokulele
12th February 2010, 08:56 PM
Seriously, this program was set up such that government agencies could avoid charges of discrimination.

So what happens? The people complying with this program get accused of discrimination.


"It's like ra-ya-ya-in on your wedding day..."

slingblade
13th February 2010, 12:39 AM
I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before.

jiggeryqua
13th February 2010, 03:08 AM
I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before.

When I was 7, before I had any concept of being 'English', my family moved to Wales. I grew up experiencing all manner of direct and indirect discrimination - all of it apparantly my fault for having been born in a country that the Welsh hold an ancient grudge against.

I recognise the taste of discrimination when I meet all manner of direct and indirect discrimination from women who share your wish, and act upon it.

Are you honestly suggesting that it's ok to discriminate against someone on the basis that they may not have been discriminated against before? That'll learn 'em, eh...

I used to think it slightly amusing that some women's groups used the slogan "equality for women"...but they really were redefining equality, quite succesfully.

Jaggy Bunnet
13th February 2010, 04:01 AM
Seriously, this program was set up such that government agencies could avoid charges of discrimination.

So what happens? The people complying with this program get accused of discrimination.


"It's like ra-ya-ya-in on your wedding day..."

No, if they wanted to avoid charges of discrimination, they would have had a requirement that the shortlist contained BOTH men and women owned businesses. But they didn't, did they.

Jaggy Bunnet
13th February 2010, 04:02 AM
I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before.

I often wish those who claim to be against discrimination were against all discrimination, not just engaged in special pleading to benefit themselves.

daenku32
13th February 2010, 05:50 AM
No speculation on why so few businesses are owned by women?

slingblade
13th February 2010, 01:17 PM
Are you honestly suggesting that it's ok to discriminate against someone on the basis that they may not have been discriminated against before? That'll learn 'em, eh...

Uh, no. I'm saying that some people don't really know what discrimination is, because they've not only never felt it, they're not likely to feel it.

That's what I'm saying, Mr. Strawman. Here's your matches.

eta: man, the more I read that, the more ridiculous and twisted it sounds. Can you explain how the hell you got what you said from what I said? I mean, it really, really, makes no sense at all.

slingblade
13th February 2010, 01:18 PM
I often wish those who claim to be against discrimination were against all discrimination, not just engaged in special pleading to benefit themselves.

That would be good, too.

jiggeryqua
13th February 2010, 02:16 PM
Uh, no. I'm saying that some people don't really know what discrimination is, because they've not only never felt it, they're not likely to feel it.

That's what I'm saying, Mr. Strawman. Here's your matches.

eta: man, the more I read that, the more ridiculous and twisted it sounds. Can you explain how the hell you got what you said from what I said? I mean, it really, really, makes no sense at all.

Let's see...you said:

"I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before. "

You wish that some people had been discriminated against. The people you wish to have been discriminated against, and by extension wish to be discriminated against before they scream again and you wish again, are people who have not been discriminated against before...oh, I see, I asked if you thought it was OK. You wish it, without qualification, but yes, I see how you might not think it was OK. Might be wise to mention that, before you promote discrimination - I sometimes wish people would die in a fire, but kids, I don't think that's an ok thing to think, nor is it an ok thing to start the fire.

Had you tried making sense of it? Really? Or did you just not like the look of it and decide it's easier to imply I'm senseless?

jiggeryqua
13th February 2010, 02:22 PM
I often wish those who claim to be against discrimination were against all discrimination, not just engaged in special pleading to benefit themselves.

Yeah - see where a battle-cry of 'equality for women' got us...

Inequality for men.

Has there ever been a movement to end all discrimination? Personally I practise and preach it, in a solo way - but it still takes specific, targeted forms. If I encounter discrimination against women, I challenge that. I don't feel the need to list sexualities and disabilities and races and creeds each time I do. Any more than I feel I need to remind everyone that women still face some imbalances in society any time I mention that there are many women who wish discrimination on men, and act on it.

Hokulele
13th February 2010, 02:34 PM
No, if they wanted to avoid charges of discrimination, they would have had a requirement that the shortlist contained BOTH men and women owned businesses. But they didn't, did they.


Heh, now you sound like dglas with his "JREF discriminates against atheists" argument.

Personally, I think it would be a move forward to do something like this, however, how granular does this have to be? Basically, the government has decided that there are certain groups of business owners where it has been demonstrated that there is discrimination in the contracting process. It is attempting to cover these groups without getting so detailed as to be exclusionary (as bigred is claiming in the OP). For example, the Ted Stevens legislation I mentioned earlier is an excellent example of what happens when these types of laws go to ridiculous extremes.

slingblade
13th February 2010, 02:55 PM
Let's see...you said:

"I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before. "

You wish that some people had been discriminated against. The people you wish to have been discriminated against, and by extension wish to be discriminated against before they scream again and you wish again, are people who have not been discriminated against before...oh, I see, I asked if you thought it was OK. You wish it, without qualification, but yes, I see how you might not think it was OK. Might be wise to mention that, before you promote discrimination - I sometimes wish people would die in a fire, but kids, I don't think that's an ok thing to think, nor is it an ok thing to start the fire.

Had you tried making sense of it? Really? Or did you just not like the look of it and decide it's easier to imply I'm senseless?

Oh, yes. Absolutely. Because this particular kind of person cannot learn the lesson without experience. They end up harming others because they have no experiential empathy. They simply can't feel it, but they have no problem screaming about it. Yes. Most definitely.

bigred
13th February 2010, 03:48 PM
Based on that logic, anyone who hasn't been raped can't empathize with a rape victim. And obviously NOBODY can empathize with a murder victim. After all, they can't "learn the lesson without experience."

:boggled:

That's pretty ridiculous. A person's ability to empathize is not automatically in direct proportion to their level of experience. To say the least.

epeos76
13th February 2010, 04:07 PM
There's a certificate for that? Why?

Because it gives companies preference bidding for some government contracts.

ETA

Oh so late to the party.

Skeptic Ginger
13th February 2010, 07:49 PM
I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before.Not sure I've been screaming it here, but as a nurse, I can definitely say, I've experienced it.

Skeptic Ginger
13th February 2010, 07:52 PM
I often wish those who claim to be against discrimination were against all discrimination, not just engaged in special pleading to benefit themselves.I repeat my question, how do you level the playing field without discriminating against those white males who've been benefitting from the discrimination for decades?

You can pretend, woosh, all past issues are magically equalized. Or you can address the real situation.

Soapy Sam
13th February 2010, 08:27 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate

pgwenthold
14th February 2010, 07:18 AM
Based on that logic, anyone who hasn't been raped can't empathize with a rape victim.

No, that is exactly wrong.

It's not empathy that slingblade is contending against. It is criticism.

Based on her logic, those who say that rape is no big deal have no credibility unless they have been raped.

The Fallen Serpent
14th February 2010, 07:52 AM
I often wish some of the people who scream "discrimination!" had ever actually tasted it before.

It is easier to experience if you travel. Even being a white male I have experienced minor discrimination. I have yet to experience oppressive discrimination. Beyond rare isolated incidents I feel I would need to go to another country for that, or for a rather massive change in US culture and power heirarchies to happen.

Even so I feel it is fair for me to meddle in discrimination. When I hear "rule 10-damned [insert hispanic racial epithet] and lazy [insert black racial epithet] should be banned from the store for stealing" when the camera showed the thieves were mostly white and what a few individuals do is irrelevant to how to treat the extrapolated population. When I claimed discrimination at that, I felt damn well justified. In other example a person claimed that women should be barred from firefighting because "women are not strong enough to lift a full sized man" after witnessing a man and a woman firefighter lifting our friend up off the ground. To that I pointed out firefighters actually have tests to that measure ability to dead weight carry people, a ban on women is unnecessary and purely sexist since some women pass and some men do not.

pipelineaudio
14th February 2010, 10:41 AM
To that I pointed out firefighters actually have tests to that measure ability to dead weight carry people, a ban on women is unnecessary and purely sexist since some women pass and some men do not.

And you realize that the actual complaint about this was that the weight standards in the tests were to be lower for women then men right?

I've never heard anyone say that if women take the same tests to the same standards that they should be treated any differently than male firefighters, the complaint was when the tests were special treatment for unqualified women

The Fallen Serpent
14th February 2010, 11:17 AM
And you realize that the actual complaint about this was that the weight standards in the tests were to be lower for women then men right?No, that was not the actual complaint. The weight carry tests are not always gender divided. Looking at some CPATs the weighted mannequins seem to be the same for all candidates. I would not be surprised if there are departments that do have gender specific tests, but it does not seem to be the standard.

I've never heard anyone say that if women take the same tests to the same standards that they should be treated any differently than male firefighters, the complaint was when the tests were special treatment for unqualified womenI have. I have been around people that claim it is impossible for a woman to be qualified.