Is This Racism?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But you're unbundling identities here that really overlap. Some people are poor because they belong to another ethnic identity and don't have a network of opportunities that established residents do. Those people also could not have the language skills to get well paying jobs, or they could be discriminated against because of only a perception that they don't have proper language skills. That's the thing, nobody is saying "I don't like South Asians and I'm not going to give them a job." The line is more like, "I don't know much about this South Asian applicant so therefore I'd trust my decision in hiring a white guy more because I'd know more or less what I'd be getting."

This is where we disagree, because I think it goes down in one of two ways:

It's either:

"We want to be seen as diverse, multicultural company and we already have too many white males, so we will show preference to non-white males."

Or

"We don't want to get in trouble over the perception that we don't hire minorities, so we will show preference to them in our hiring practices."

Okay, maybe the guy that owns the corner store down the street is only going to hire people of the same race/religion, but anything bigger than that is subject to politics where white male preference is fatal.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I don't follow our education system but I would have to guess that the school that the kid goes to in Falconridge is just as good as the one that another kid goes to in Midnapore. I think the whole "poor people go to bad schools so they are disadvantaged" is probably incorrect.

Education is so much more than just K-12 public school.

If you are middle/upper class, or "rich" prefer then your kids are far more likely to have more exposure or access to other types of education. It might be tutors, or space camp, music lessons or post-secondary education. I might be that Ivy league school that gives you a real leg up in the work world, but costs $100k a year.

Take a totally fictitious rich kid living in DeWinton, who drives into the city every day to go to school, if he thinks he has had the same educational or life opportunities as an asian kid growing up in Forest Lawn with 2 parents who work 12 hour days just to make ends meet because they can't get a better job.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you think that race, class, gender and sexual orientation don't all contribute to how a person is treated in society, then you are just going to have to misunderstand what I am saying.

Treated differently how? If you are talking about socially, then sure, I agree with you. Institutionally, however, I have to disagree. You said that banks racially profile when loaning money for houses. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I agree and that is where I think Rathji was incorrect as he was using race as the issue and not class.

Actually, I am saying that race, gender and class and sexual orientation all contribute to every single person's experience in our society.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This is where we disagree, because I think it goes down in one of two ways:

It's either:

"We want to be seen as diverse, multicultural company and we already have too many white males, so we will show preference to non-white males."

Or

"We don't want to get in trouble over the perception that we don't hire minorities, so we will show preference to them in our hiring practices."

Okay, maybe the guy that owns the corner store down the street is only going to hire people of the same race/religion, but anything bigger than that is subject to politics where white male preference is fatal.

And that explains why the corporate world is dominated by white males how exactly?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Treated differently how? If you are talking about socially, then sure, I agree with you. Institutionally, however, I have to disagree. You said that banks racially profile when loaning money for houses. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I don't have the time to provide a peer reviewed article to prove my point it exists, but check out this Wiki entry on Redlining. It doesn't happen universally by any stretch of the imagination, and it is much less predominate in recent years, compared to the 1950's -60's, but the process still exists, as is pointed out in the entry.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

And that explains why the corporate world is dominated by white males how exactly?

Is it? I don't question for a second that this is the way things used to be, but now? Even more, I would say that as those who benefited from white male biases in the past get older and retire, we are seeing more and more women and visible minorities replace them. Mind you, we are talking about those that get promoted within the corporate world, not those who have founded their companies.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the biggest problem is that we have situations from one or two or five generations ago that groups still lean on as an excuse for not moving forward.

Yes the slave trade was horrible, and the treatment of natives were horrible, but isn't it time to quit blaming the past and move into the future. Let go of the anger and resentment and stop using it as a crutch.

I think this argument is a bit flawed. To say that these problems are the problems of the past is false. If you've been to the southern U.S., you'll see that, for whatever reason, the disparity between the blacks and whites is still huge - both in wealth and education. The racial line still exists. Although I won't disagree with you that it's possibly self-perpetuated by both sides not moving forward.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Education is so much more than just K-12 public school.

If you are middle/upper class, or "rich" prefer then your kids are far more likely to have more exposure or access to other types of education. It might be tutors, or space camp, music lessons or post-secondary education. I might be that Ivy league school that gives you a real leg up in the work world, but costs $100k a year.

Take a totally fictitious rich kid living in DeWinton, who drives into the city every day to go to school, if he thinks he has had the same educational or life opportunities as an asian kid growing up in Forest Lawn with 2 parents who work 12 hour days just to make ends meet because they can't get a better job.

So when does the whole racism come into play here?

How about the fictitious white kid who grows up in rural Canada and doesn't have access to these "extra" educational opportunities yet still goes to post secondary

So if this asian kids parents moved here and probably cant speak the language and might have a poor education then too, why does that fall into your defination of racism?

This goes back to language skills

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Is it? I don't question for a second that this is the way things used to be, but now? Even more, I would say that as those who benefited from white male biases in the past get older and retire, we are seeing more and more women and visible minorities replace them. Mind you, we are talking about those that get promoted within the corporate world, not those who have founded their companies.

These stats appear to be 10 years old and actually are created to show the difference between women and men, but they are broken down by race so you can clearly see that minoity women have a larger wage gap than their white counterparts. The more recent stats I have seen indicate much the same trend, albeit a slight reduction in the gap over all and notably among entry level women ( < 25 year of age) are starting to earn as much or more than their male counterparts in some cases. This means that in 50 years, you might see things be equal in the job market, between men and women at least.

[SeeBass]

I believe we are talking about Canada and racism?

Has the topic changed to include US problems? If it has that is a completly different conversation.

More than once somebody has brought up a US issue as their example.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You need to dig deeper rather just looking at a graph. Why do men make more than women? Maybe this disparity can be explained by women taking maternity leave? Women take a year off to raise their kids, and then when they come back to work, many prefer to be able to meet what they view to be their family obligations. Meanwhile, men aren't hindered by this and are often able to focus on their careers. Maybe women are statistically more likely than men are to accept the first offer given to them? Legally, men are not allowed to make more than women when performing the same job.

Edit: and as SeeBass said above, my issue concerns Canada. I don't live in the US and I don't know what it is like down there when it comes to racial and gender equality.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

So when does the whole racism come into play here?

How about the fictitious white kid who grows up in rural Canada and doesn't have access to these "extra" educational opportunities yet still goes to post secondary

So if this asian kids parents moved here and probably cant speak the language and might have a poor education then too, why does that fall into your defination of racism?

This goes back to language skills

Don't confuse people being disadvantaged with people being a victim of racism, or don't think I am trying to say that all disadvantages stem from race issues alone.

I am talking about all forms of disadvantage, as my original objection that spurred my post, was mikey giving a loaded statement that racism doesn't cause problems towards a person's level of success as long as the person was a) born here and b) has all the same education.

I was simply pointing out that there are many disadvantages people face that stem, at least partially, from them being a) not born here, or b) not having the same educational opportunities. Language skills, as you mentioned, is certainly a huge part of that.

I am going to repeat this one last time, before I head to school, but overt racism doesn't cause all disadvantages face by racial minorities in our society. It couldn't possibly, simply because there are way more factors to consider other than race.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Is it? I don't question for a second that this is the way things used to be, but now? Even more, I would say that as those who benefited from white male biases in the past get older and retire, we are seeing more and more women and visible minorities replace them. Mind you, we are talking about those that get promoted within the corporate world, not those who have founded their companies.

I work in finance (on the legal side) and haven't dealt with a single person in a top level position that wasn't a white male. A few non-white males at the rung below, but not that many. Very few females at any level actually.

That will change of course, but I'd argue that's more a product of changing demographics and the opening of educational opportunities than it is any racial/gender bias.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I believe we are talking about Canada and racism?

Has the topic changed to include US problems? If it has that is a completly different conversation.

More than once somebody has brought up a US issue as their example.

Originally Posted by Ark2

You need to dig deeper rather just looking at a graph.

...

Edit: and as SeeBass said above, my issue concerns Canada. I don't live in the US and I don't know what it is like down there when it comes to racial and gender equality.

I understand that we are talking about Canada, but to deny the same trends exist between our societies would be incorrect.

The point of the graphs, as I said in my post, was that white women and minority women earn different amounts for similar positions and education levels, even with laws in place to prevent such things. I posted them in response to the claim that even now, white people are not dominant in the corporate world. I could have found better graphs, but I am already late in leaving the house so I just pulled up the first thing that Google fed me that illustrated my point.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I understand that we are talking about Canada, but to deny the same trends exist between our societies would be incorrect.

The point of the graphs, as I said in my post, was that white women and minority women earn different amounts for similar positions and education levels, even with laws in place to prevent such things. I posted them in response to the claim that even now, white people are not dominant in the corporate world. I could have found better graphs, but I am already late in leaving the house so I just pulled up the first thing that Google fed me that illustrated my point.

you were not the only one I was talking about.

your graph just happen to come up just before my post

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Maybe this disparity can be explained by women taking maternity leave? Women take a year off to raise their kids, and then when they come back to work, many prefer to be able to meet what they view to be their family obligations. Meanwhile, men aren't hindered by this and are often able to focus on their careers.

This right here is a perfect example of discrimination. In our society women are, by and large, expected to do the majority of the child-rearing. This means that they do not have the same potential earning power as men for exactly the reason above. They are expected to take time off for maternity leave. This is something that we can correct through legislative policy. I want to be clear here, I'm talking about helping increase women's earning power more so than changing the attitude towards who performs child rearing, but both are clearly impacted by the following example.

The example I will provide is that of Sweden, where the government provides a generous 13 months of paid parental leave. Of these 13 months two are reserved exclusively for the father. If there is no father, or the father chooses not to take these two months, only 11 are available.

Since the institution of this policy, the number of fathers taking leave has increased from 6% to 85%. And what are the economic outcomes for women? For every month that their partner takes in parental leave a woman's future earnings go up by 7%. Imagine a couple who splits the 13 months reasonably evenly, 8 for her and 5 for him. That will increase her future earnings by an enormous 35%. That's the difference between 45k a year and 60k.

This is a perfect example of how a societal bias - the view that women should be the primary child care givers - can be positively changed by government policy and the society as a whole can benefit.

sources:
http://www.businesswings.co.uk/artic...eave-extension

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/wo...ht-sweden.html

[valo403]

Originally Posted by driveway

This right here is a perfect example of discrimination. In our society women are, by and large, expected to do the majority of the child-rearing. This means that they do not have the same potential earning power as men for exactly the reason above. They are expected to take time off for maternity leave. This is something that we can correct through legislative policy. I want to be clear here, I'm talking about helping increase women's earning power more so than changing the attitude towards who performs child rearing, but both are clearly impacted by the following example.

The example I will provide is that of Sweden, where the government provides a generous 13 months of paid parental leave. Of these 13 months two are reserved exclusively for the father. If there is no father, or the father chooses not to take these two months, only 11 are available.

Since the institution of this policy, the number of fathers taking leave has increased from 6% to 85%. And what are the economic outcomes for women? For every month that their partner takes in parental leave a woman's future earnings go up by 7%. Imagine a couple who splits the 13 months reasonably evenly, 8 for her and 5 for him. That will increase her future earnings by an enormous 35%. That's the difference between 45k a year and 60k.

This is a perfect example of how a societal bias - the view that women should be the primary child care givers - can be positively changed by government policy and the society as a whole can benefit.

sources:
http://www.businesswings.co.uk/artic...eave-extension

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/wo...ht-sweden.html

Most importantly, this policy would really help me put in some much needed hours perfecting my video game skills.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by valo403

Most importantly, this policy would really help me put in some much needed hours perfecting my video game skills.

Amen. I am all for socialism if I can play online poker all day...