Why is this legal?

[Phil Rhodes]

assuming they will is ridiculous

 

Yes.

 

However, working on the basis that they might is, unfortunately, nothing more or less than good business practice. To play devil's advocate, maternity leave rules simply make young women very unattractive as employees. It is currently illegal to ask someone in a job interview if they're considering starting a family, which I consider to be a question as reasonable as on any other topic leading to long-term unavailability. I would encourage all young women who aren't intending to have kids to offer this information - do it in writing and make it on-record that you have not been asked for the information - as otherwise you will be tacitly overlooked, especially by small businesses which would be ruined by funding maternity leave.

 

The private health insurance situation differs here, but my main concern is over the fact that women effectively get months off on full pay. Childbearing is a choice; my attitude to it is that if you choose to do it, you also choose to pay for it, much as you would choose to take and pay for any other option open to you. If you chose to go hang-gliding, you wouldn't expect an employer to give you huge amounts of time off on full pay.

 

Personally, I think that everyone, male and female, should get a two-year sabbatical, government-funded, that can be taken at any point in adult life for any purpose. Then, if you've got something you burningly want to do - travel, write a novel, whatever - you can do it, before you become a retiree and limited by age-related infirmity. If you wanted to use that sabbatical to have kids, fine, that's your call, but don't ask someone else to pay for it.

 

P

[Michele Peterson]

Then why not assume that it is just as likely that a young man will get hurt on the job and the company will have to pay for worker's compensation and disability, maybe even for the rest of his life? Young men are also statistically more likely to get in a car accident, on or off the job and be unavailable for work and draw on resources. Everyone who was born in the system took advantage of it's benefits where their mothers took leave, so giving back to it is only fair. Survival of the specifies is in everyone best interest. Is saving a couple months of insurance premiums worth hiring an inferior employee who would have brought the company less money over the long run better than a female who you don't know for certain if she even would have? Having happy employees who get many benefits makes more successful companies, look at Norway.

 

If you want to go back to women not working, then men have to go back to being able to fully support women and kids and too many in society today cannot do that, which is what drives women, like me, to make a living and support themselves. I was raised to be self reliant, not expect a man to do so. You have to pay for it one way or another.

 

You talk about it not being my fault being born female like it is some kind of disability. WTF? My ability to create life is something you can never do.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Michele Peterson

[Daniel Smith]

With a system anyone can take the p*ss out of, fewer people are going to take responsibility.

[Phil Rhodes]

I will not engage in this further than responding to the following points, as everyone's getting far too worked up.

 

Then why not assume that it is just as likely that a young man will get hurt on the job and the company will have to pay for worker's compensation and disability,

 

Yes. That's not a choice. Having kids is.

 

If you want to go back to women not working

 

Oh come on, cheap shot. What I want is for employers to be able to ask these extremely reasonable questions at interview and not be expected to pay for other people's lifestyle choices.

 

You talk about it not being my fault being born female like it is some kind of disability. WTF? My ability to create life is something you can never do.

 

No, I don't, I talk about your being born female like it's something you can't help. The fact that I'm 6'4" and fair haired are also things over which I have no control. Regardless of the effects these things have or do not have, the point is that we should not hold them against people if they didn't choose them.

 

You do, however, choose to have kids.

 

P

[Michele Peterson]

Men choose to have kids too, they can take paternity leave too, they might not come to work to take care of a child too. Women aren't the only ones. Your discriminating against women for taking maternity leave, but paternity leave exists too.

 

It's not a cheap shot, it's cause and effect. If employers want to be able to not hire a women because she is of child bearing age, (not all women know for certain they want kids or when they might have them) then then those that can't get hired need an alternative way to survive economically, and not being able to be hired means that someone else has to support them. If everyone acted like you hiring women and assumed they are probably going to take leave, then women would find it near impossible to get hired before age 50.

[Michele Peterson]

With a system anyone can take the p*ss out of, fewer people are going to take responsibility.

 

Exactly. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it too. To able to not pay back the system, that they already used, or to not hire women, but not have to support them when they take away their means of self-support.

[Phil Rhodes]

If everyone acted like you hiring women and assumed they are probably going to take leave, then women would find it near impossible to get hired before age 50.

 

...precisely, which is why I think this is a problem. I should make it clear here that I do not generally hire anyone for more than a few days at a time and therefore this does not impinge on me directly; I am repeating what I've heard other people say, both small businesses just above the threshold for this (who would simply be shut down instantly by a maternity leave claim), and big outfits like local government.

 

As I say. Best solution: sabbatical for everyone, use it as you will, and allow people to ask the question at interview.

 

P

[Michele Peterson]

...precisely, which is why I think this is a problem.

 

If agree that this practice is a problem, then why are you arguing for it?

 

Any company that is shut down by a leave of absence is not doing very well to begin with, and wouldn't likely be able to offer benefits 9of any kind, like leave or vacation) in the first place. An injury or discrimination suit would ruin them too. Millions of women work for many companies and never take a leave paid by their employer. Pregnancy is not always planned, anyone not careful can get pregnant the same as a man not careful can get hurt and take resources. Complaining about maternity is just and excuse to discriminate, it doesn't out weigh all the possible drains on a company that any man or woman can cause such as lawsuits or accidents.

[Phil Rhodes]

If agree that this practice is a problem, then why are you arguing for it?

 

I'm not arguing for it, I'm telling you this is what is happening. Whether you or I like the idea could not possibly be of slighter relevance.

 

It stands as an example of the disadvantages of putting mechanisms like maternity leave in place without having properly thought-through the implications. Instead of ensuring someone in situation X keeps a job to return to, you end up with that person simply never being hired.

 

It is happening right now. And under the current rules, it is completely understandable.

 

P

[Michele Peterson]

It is happening right now. And under the current rules, it is completely understandable.

 

Discrimination is NOT understandable! These are just excuses. Many employers, in the US, don't even offer fully paid maternity leave (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/32101.php). It counts as family or medical leave if they do offer it, so it isn't limited to women, men can take leave too and leave can be taken for a variety of reasons!

 

Everyone who discriminates makes up some weak reason to make themselves feel better about it. Acting like maternity is a bigger drain on companies than other types of leave is unrealistic and a poor excuse.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Michele Peterson

[Michele Peterson]

as we have seen, and logic gets tossed to the side.

 

Just because you don't like or agree with it, does not make it illogical. Calling something illogical, does not make people unable to think for themselves and fall for it.

[Matthew Buick]

This thread is going to the dogs, so I'll add something interesting:

 

I just got a 1'54.363 lap time in the Top Gear Reasonably Priced Car game.

 

Here's the link, if anyone's interested.

[Guest]

Just because you don't like or agree with it, does not make it illogical. Calling something illogical, does not make people unable to think for themselves and fall for it.

 

I tried to leave this thread Michelle and now here you go dragging me back in. I said, go your way and I'll go mine. You have a unique ability to twist people's words around to your own interpretation I will give you that. You are doing it quite well to Phil.

 

"Logic" defined by me would be that all people, regardless of race or gender, are treated equally. You don't see it that way, fine.

 

When an organization like ACTRA requires visible minorities to have three credits for membership and whites to have six, that is not logical. It creates two classes of people and further increases animosity.

 

Why ACTRA can't simply say, we require "x" number of credits for all people is beyond me. And some others apparently as well.

 

R,

[Michele Peterson]

I NEVER said people shouldn't be treated equally! Everyone here is arguing against help minorities. Helping a minority is not the same as taking a job out of white person's hands, so what's the harm? Discrimination exists, so what try to take an opportunity away from people that face it much more often? It's not a perfect world where all discrimination is gone instantly, so whay take away a program that helps without hurting others? People who want to help, are trying to create opportunities where minorities can get in to compensate for the discrimination. Just because a program, like the original one, has a goal to help minorities, does not mean that they will do it at a white person's expense. White men have not been forbidden to take part in these programs. It's not quotas in any way, no one is saying white people can't get into these programs too. There are a wealth of opportunities to go around, this is one opportunity for minorities, who happen to have less doors open to them.

 

 

If you don't agree with the ACTRA, then you have every right to do something about it. As I said, discrimination does exists, but don't wait for someone else to fix it for you. Or like you refer to people before, just make your own opportunities and keep working through it. There is also a supply and demand issue that gives reason to try to get more ethnic people in (as someone already mentioned earlier). More white people apply, so they can be pickier with them, but in acting, looks are a requirement in a way that is not necessarily discrimination, so they need to have other ethnicities too. If only 5 black people apply and they have 5 black parts available, they can take all 5, if 100 whites apply and only 5 can work, then they don't need to take all 100, they only want to take the top 5.

 

Just because you want to make me sound worse to make yourself sound better by making up random stuff about me (that I have a victim complex and am against equality) and things I never said does not make it true or other people believe it. Becasue I can debate back and forth and have actual points against something said does not make it twisting or illogical. You asked why I didn't comment about Phil's comment, I answered, then he responded in regards to it. Phil brought up the thread because he wants to debate it. I can continue to debate if I want to. I don't have to stop because you don't like going up against me. I also don't have to stand by and let you call refer to me as illogical just because you and I don't agree and you have no other point to make.

[Guest]

What other point do you have to make other than, "all white males are in a conspiracy to keep down women and minorities?"

 

You state: "Everyone here is arguing against help minorities"

 

That is just total BS!! Who is saying that?

 

My point is that there should be a level playing field and race should never be an issue. FYI, "affirmative action" programs are being struck down by US courts at a record pace.

 

Well I guess we are going to be here a long time, until Tim shuts this one down. Which I suspect is coming soon ;)

 

R,

[Michele Peterson]

I didn't say "all white males are in a conspiracy...", putting it in quotes doesn't put words in my mouth!

 

Who? - The whole thread is about Phil asking why it is legally allowed that the original program can have the goal to help a minority! You are saying they shouldn't be allowed to do anything based on race, including help through this program!

 

In a perfect world race would not be an issue, but the world isn't perfect, and people don't get hired based on race, so now people, like you, are saying race doesn't matter and shouldn't be used help someone. Affirmative action and quotas, is not what the original program is doing. It trains people and helps them find jobs, NOT force anyone to hire anyone else. Equating this program to affirmative action or quotas is incorrect. My point is and always has been, that these programs are not taking jobs out of the hands of white males, or forcing anyone to hire minorities. There is not reason (which is Phil's original question of why) not to allow a program to help minorities, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. The program in question isn't hurting anyone because it isn't forbidding whites or forcing someone to hire a minority over a white.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Michele Peterson

[Michael Lehnert]

What other point do you have to make other than, "all white males are in a conspiracy to keep down women and minorities?"

 

You state: "Everyone here is arguing against help minorities"

 

That is just total BS!! Who is saying that?

 

My point is that there should be a level playing field and race should never be an issue. FYI, "affirmative action" programs are being struck down by US courts at a record pace.

 

Well I guess we are going to be here a long time, until Tim shuts this one down. Which I suspect is coming soon ;)

 

R,

 

Richard,

 

just a brief intermission here,

 

I think the issue at hand is actually that the idea of total equality and a level playing field for everyone is one thing (even enshrined in constitutional texts all over the planet that were written at a time when this clearly was not existent at all), but the societal realities even today are very much different as in many parts of professional and societal life, race or gender do matter a lot for personel questions, more than many good men can possible (or possibly want) to acknowledge. This goes beyond the circumstance that to top it off, "these minorities" have been implicitly or explicitly deprived of key role models, entry to professional and educational institutions, or are stereotypically regarded as unfit to perform a certain job.

 

These debates have even been held here in respect to women being stereotypically unable to lift cameras or being too girly to do a "field job" that was put forward by a sizeable amount of people here are signature enough of that. Opinions that a person of a physique like David here is hence regared as fit for a DoP, whereas a women - despite having a more "masculine" physique - is regared as unfit is not only a shocker for David Mullen or myself, but should be for many more people.

 

Just 100 years ago, women were clinically diagnosed and scientifically proven to be unfit for higher secondary and tertiary education, let alone a proper men's job in a bank, as round-the-world sailor, or pilot; on grounds of their tender physique, limited brainpower, inability to act independently and objectively, and of course because their duty to God is childbearing, and biologically/natural-historically they collect berries in the field while the real men go hunting (apart from native societies in Africa, Amazonia and Indonesia where the women go hunting and the men sit at home and cook, but that was conveniently forgotten under the "primitive societies" banner by anthropology).

 

Your contetion that your professional Candian body (probably having bilingual forms in proper English and that frog-eaters language) demands less credits is similar to the idea that humans of lesser means or traditional lack of accessibility shouldn't get benefical treatmant: such as reduced entry prices for museums to kids or students ("mostly rich middle class wankers anyhow whose daddy pays for the BMW parked in from of Phi Beta Kappa"), or preferential treatment for soldiers ("they shoot people, and then they receive preferences for good jobs over peace-loving tree huggers? pfui!") or that it matters for political reasons that Black Guy gets Oscar ("Although Marty Scorsese was soo much better - foul - the Italian-American community is getting ass-shafted here - let's start a riot")

 

If the Royal Comission of Jordan participates in a training programm with the UK and Iraq for cinematographers under the condition that out of the 10 places, 3 must go to female film students, people (particularly those 3 men left out in the cold) can cry foul, but if one is not totally unempathic and detached from the social realities, this decision makes alot of sense.

 

Let's face it, those loudly annoyed by affirmative action, whether its a Harvard entry, a gov grant, a union membership, a crucial job or a place in a team, are mostly those men that are least talented out of the selection that would actually have received a place despite being not really fit-for-it, yet whose place went to a "minority" usually not found in these professions, and with their absence having no obviously biological, explicit and comprehensive reason at all.

 

Unless, of course, that there is a reason that 97% of all cinematography-based jobs (DoPs, ACs etc) are white men, with the tiny rest being flagship ethniticies and gender people rightly being paraded around as they break the mould and can serve as a role model. I am looking forward to hear why cinematography is one of the least diversified professions on this planet (after all, there are even male geishas in Japan, one of the more "conservative" societies on Earth - not to use the R/S'ism words here).

 

I don't know, this entire thread really seems to be queer. Is that a White Thing? ;)

[Guest]

Your contetion that your professional Candian body (probably having bilingual forms in proper English and that frog-eaters language) demands less credits is similar to the idea that humans of lesser means or traditional lack of accessibility shouldn't get benefical treatmant: such as reduced entry prices for museums to kids or students ("mostly rich middle class wankers anyhow whose daddy pays for the BMW parked in from of Phi Beta Kappa"), or preferential treatment for soldiers ("they shoot people, and then they receive preferences for good jobs over peace-loving tree huggers? pfui!") or that it matters for political reasons that Black Guy gets Oscar ("Although Marty Scorsese was soo much better - foul - the Italian-American community is getting ass-shafted here - let's start a riot")

 

Well I'm not sure I can go along with the comparison of what ACTRA does and lower admission for kids and seniors? As a side note I've never understood "seniors discounts" any way? Most of them are quite well off and they have zero expenses for young children each month, and usually zero expenses for a mortgage. And yet I'm a 40 year old with two kids and a mortgage to pay for, so I get charged the highest rate to enter a museum? Idiotic, but I/we digress.

 

Veterans get benefits in Canada at least, REGARDLESS, of their race. That is the way it should be. A veteran is a veteran, they served the nation in combat and that is what they have in common.

 

Here's a question: If I refuse to use ACTRA because I disagree with their racially motivated entrance requirements, does that some how make me a racist? If so, why?

 

Just as a side note, ACTRA's policies are not lambasted only by me in this country. What ACTRA does is not popular with a lot of people in the film and TV industry here. Actors and directors a like.

 

In the early 90s Ontario was run by a socialist party called the NDP, the head of which was a guy called Bob Rae. This was their first time running Canada's biggest province, which has a GDP larger than many countries, and they decided it was time at last to implement their idiotic socialist dream.

 

One of their polices was called "employment equity". The idea was that businesses had to hire a staff that had the same ethnic make up of their geographic area. So if your area was 50% white, 25% black, and 25% Asian, your company had to look the same.

 

The running joke was that Chinese restaurants in white areas would have to fire their staff and hire white servers :D

 

Another one of Bob Rae's scheme's was to run ads in newspapers for jobs with the Ontario gov't that actually had "White Males Need Not Apply" at the bottom! I kid you not!

 

Well the whole scheme was not going over too well in Ontario, & an interesting thing happened, white women in Ontario who usually benefited from gov't schemes to try and "level the playing field" suddenly found themselves on the ass end of gov't policy.

 

In the next election Bob Rae was booted from power in spectacular fashion and was replaced by a right wing party led by Mike Harris, who won TWO consecutive majority gov'ts in Ontario.

 

Thousands of white female voters turned on the NDP and voted for Mike Harris. Mike Harris quickly turfed "employment equity" into the garbage can and that was that.

 

An interesting piece of history.

 

R,

[Michele Peterson]

One of their polices was called "employment equity".

 

No one is arguing for Employment Equity, Affirmative Action (as it was called in the US) or quotas of any kind! If your whole point is against quotas, no on is arguing you on that. My only problem is when people who don't like affirmative action try to use that as an excuse to take away programs that give minorities opportunities without hurting anyone else. The idea behind affirmitive action was to get more minorities into jobs and that would eliminate discrimination. I'm certainly not arguing that affirmative action worked. But having positive examples in positions that they rarely are in, is what will get rid of discrimination. Offering them more opportunities is what gets more minorities involved without having to force someone to hire them. Not every program is the same or even close to a quota, so don't lump it in with quotas.

 

Another one of Bob Rae's scheme's was to run ads in newspapers for jobs with the Ontario gov't that actually had "White Males Need Not Apply" at the bottom! I kid you not!

 

It may not have been meant to be literal, but satire used to make a political point by showing whites what it is like on the other side of discrimination.

 

Senior citizens get discounts because many are not actually well off. They have fixed incomes from pensions that do not increase with inflation. Gas prices go up, but their pension payouts don't. Many blue collar type workers never made much money to put extra away. Some people had pensions from employers, such as Enron, and then that was gone from something they couldn't control. Senior citizens, in the US, also have many more medical bills and expenses than the average youth. The reason a business wants to give discounts to senior is to give them an incentive to want to go to the movies or the restaurant or whatever the business is. 90% is better than 0.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Michele Peterson

[Guest]

My only problem is when people who don't like affirmative action try to use that as an excuse to take away programs that give minorities opportunities without hurting anyone else. The idea behind affirmitive action was to get more minorities into jobs and that would eliminate discrimination.

 

What's an example of a program that gives minorities an opportunity without hurting any one else? If it's private funds I could care less. Public funds are a different thing all together.

 

If I set up a private program using my own personal funds to pay for 10 aboriginal women to attend university is that discrimination?

 

Or.....

 

If I set up a program using my own personal funds to pay for 10 white males to attend university is that discrimination?

 

R,

 

PS: I'm guessing that the answer to my first scenario is, no. In fact I'd receive some sort of award and be told what a great guy I am.

 

In my second scenario I'd be called a racist and some "group" in Canada would sue me to try and stop the program.

[Michele Peterson]

What's an example of a program that gives minorities an opportunity without hurting any one else? If it's private funds I could care less. Public funds are a different thing all together.

 

The Program that started this is! It is a private production company! It says so right on the site. It also isn't hurting anyone else because it is NOT excluding whites. No where did I see it say no white males, or only minorities. Just because it wants to help minoriites, doesn't automatically mean no whites! There is no evidence to that they don't accept white men, you're only assuming!!! And as the saying goes, when you assume you make and ass out of you an me. I participated in a program that had the goal to help train minorities, but they had several white males in the program, they helped without excluding anyone or hurting anyone.

 

 

 

I also noticed you have nothing to say about the total lie you tried to pass off as a quote from me! That is completely unprofessional. You are destroying your own credibility. You are making assumptions about me and those assumptions are total wrong.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Michele Peterson

[Guest]

I also noticed you have nothing to say about the total lie you tried to pass off as a quote from me! That is completely unprofessional. You are destroying your own credibility. You are making assumptions about me and those assumptions are total wrong.

 

Bring it to my attention, what quote?

 

Geez you're a hot head.

 

R,

[Michele Peterson]

What other point do you have to make other than, "all white males are in a conspiracy to keep down women and minorities?"

 

I never said the above statement you put into quotes when referring to me and my points.

 

Denial and insults don't make you look any better, so try cutting it out and saving you're reputation.

[Guest]

I never said the above statement you put into quotes when referring to me and my points.

 

Denial and insults don't make you look any better, so try cutting it out and saving you're reputation.

 

Yes I KNOW THAT! Putting it in quotes was not to attribute it to you.

 

Putting it on quotes was to summarize your philosophy in one brief statement. I don't think any one, other than you, took it as a direct quote from you.

 

You don't need to keep trying to warn me re my reputation, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

 

R,

[Michele Peterson]

Yes I KNOW THAT! Putting it in quotes was not to attribute it to you.

 

Putting it on quotes was to summarize your philosophy in one brief statement. I don't think any one, other than you, took it as a direct quote from you.

 

You don't need to keep trying to warn me re my reputation, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

 

R,

 

You're trying to sum up me? LOL You are making up what I believe! You think I believe that because you want to, I never reffered to all white males being in a conspiracy and don't believe that in the slightest. Why do you think it is ok to get to make up what I believe?

 

Quotation marks means an exact quote! That is the definition of what a quote is! That is what the English language as a whole has made standard. Where do get the idea that quotations mean anything else? Paraphrasing does not use quotation marks. It's a lie to refer to me in quotes if I didn't say it. I'm not going to stand by and let you get away with it.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Michele Peterson