Hey all, I figured that this article might be an interesting subject of discussion.
Is discrimination really bad?
http://mises.org/daily/5126/OMG-Theres- … g-Industry
Should generate a few arguments!
It's much better to ignore reality for the sake of people's feelings. Let's pretend everybody is a rainbow.
Sure is discrimination if the tv news business. Every woman news reader is a model.
there maybe different kinds of jobs which discrimination related to hiring may not apply specially with modeling and other customer related jobs. Employers have the right to select their employee based on the qualification (physical and non physical).
It just boils down to sensitivity on people's feelings. If you are not going to hire me, break it to me gently, but come to think of it really in that kind of business or world, rejection letter is hard to even put into writing.
Same is true if you are a small man, don't apply to become a bouncer. Business is business, if they can't sell products because the market is predominantly white, then they have the right to choose the right model in which the buying public can relate.
In bigger modeling agency, different races can be accepted because they have bigger markets all over the globe, hence the need of different women to model the products based on the area.
It is a bit silly to complain about a modelling agency making decisions based just on physical appearance, given that that is basically all that their job entails.
And the article makes a good point about all the types of discrimination nobody mentions. It's not just the job of a bouncer you shouldn't apply for if you're a short man - there are very few executives on the board of big companies who are below average height and most CEOs are over 6 foot. Apparently tall people look more imposing and powerful, so they get all the powerful jobs.
Thanks for the posts all.
I'm actually surprised so many people agree with what the article had to say!
This reminds me of the episode of Drew Carey, where Mimi applies to be a make-up consultant. Her make-up application skills are obviously lacking, if you've ever seen the show. She doesn't get the gig, and Drew is honest with her about her appearance playing a part in that decision, and she sues. The court orders the store to hire her in some capacity. It's good TV, good comedy, but terrible jurisprudence, since one's ability to apply makeup has a direct bearing on one's credibility as a makeup consultant.
Also, reminds me of an episode of Ed (remember Ed?) where a student accuses a drama teacher of not casting him as the lead in the school play because of his race. And the accusation is true: the kid is black, the role is Abraham Lincoln.
"If you're making a movie about George Washington, are you going to cast Denzel Washington?"
I mean, if you were told, "Sorry, your non-caucasian heritage will make it difficult for you to get accounting work here in Perth," that would be outrageous, since one's appearance has nothing to do with one's ability as an accountant. But to be told, "Sorry, your look means you won't get many modeling jobs here," well, that's very much like being told, "Sorry, you're not hot enough to be a model here."
Appearance is what it's all about, and type is important. Perhaps the lady could try to get acting gigs, as sometimes casting directors are looking to cast against type, and will deliberately cast someone the audience won't expect to see in a given role? Of course, modeling and acting are two different skill-sets, as the career of Kathy Ireland demonstrates....
"If you're making a movie about George Washington, are you going to cast Denzel Washington?"
The prospect is kind of funny, isn't it? But the thing is, a lot of people find the prospect ridiculous only if it's a non-white person being cast as a white person, not necessarily the other way around.
Hollywood was really notorious for this in the past, as with all the Italians running around in buckskin and face paint pretending to be Indians in old Westerns, but it still goes on today, as you see with the recent controversies over casting white actors as Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian in The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia. You can argue that there simply aren't that many Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian actors working in the US, but how much of that is because Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian actors can't get cast in "white" roles but whites can get cast as Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian? The only thing unusual about the casting choices for The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia was that people raised a big enough stink about them that the mainstream press actually noticed for once.
It's true that there is "legitimate" discrimination in that people must be qualified for the job they apply for in order to receive it - even if those qualifications are inborn physical traits and not skills developed through education or practice - but there is real discrimination at play in many casting decisions and - yes - modeling agencies as well.
"Hollywood was really notorious for this in the past, as with all the Italians running around in buckskin and face paint pretending to be Indians in old Westerns, but it still goes on today, as you see with the recent controversies over casting white actors as Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian in The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia."
Absolutely true, kerryg; good point. I have to wonder if M. Knight Shayamalan couldn't find actors to match his characters' heritage in Airbender, or if the studio told him, "Cast white guys."
"You can argue that there simply aren't that many Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian actors working in the US, but how much of that is because Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian actors can't get cast in "white" roles but whites can get cast as Inuit, Tibetan, and Persian?"
Well, you could also argue that whites get cast in Inuit roles because the alternative is to cast some Inuits and some whites, since there are so few people of any race who can act, and since there are even fewer Inuits in the talent pool, you pretty much have to cast at least some of those roles with white actors, which will be confusing: aren't those two meant to be genetic brothers? It's a vicious circle.
This can work on the upside, though. A good actor who isn't white will get regularly cast as characters that need to be played by an actor of his race. It's worked out pretty well for Graham Greene, for example.
But for every Graham Greene, there's a huge bunch of non-white actors who don't get work simply because there are so few non-white roles available, and even those often get taken by white actors, so they often give up on becoming a working actor and go into auto sales or whatever, which leaves fewer non-white actors available for non-white roles, etc... Vicious circle.
As more and more non-white people gain more economic and social influence, though, this will continue to change. One of Vin Diesel's selling points is his ethnic ambiguity--it's easy for guys of many races to identify with him.
Ah, I'm starting to ramble, and I gotta go get stuff done. Interesting discussion, though.
"you pretty much have to cast at least some of those roles with white actors, which will be confusing: aren't those two meant to be genetic brothers? "
Haha, funny you should mention that! M. Knight cast the two Inuit sidekicks and their grandmother as whites, but got Inuit extras for the other villagers, so you have a weird situation where it looks like the tribe just randomly decided to adopt three white people...
You can sort of excuse the grandmother, because she really did come from somewhere else (the more advanced Northern Water Tribe, which M. Knight somewhat suspiciously cast as all white even though they are also clearly Inuit in the show), but the kids are 3/4 Southern Water Tribe and should logically be mixed race at minimum.
That is a fascinating concept when applied to reality instead of just a movie role.
Think about it though. It's really happening. We are asked to accept Denzel Washington in the role of George Washington every day and I'm not talking about race, I'm talking about qualifications in general. The fact that Denzel is black and George is white just serves to make the illustration more blunt.
For example, we are asked to accept postal workers who are not suited or qualified for the job based on their performance. We can see this as we go to our mail boxes and find someone else's mail there and wonder how much of ours is in someone else's mail box. We are asked to accept shoddy service in various places given by people who are obviously not hired because they are qualified.
We have become an affirmative action nation where suitability and qualification have given way to race. People from minority groups are hired because of race.
Police departments are ordered to lower their testing standards if it is found they are unable to meet affirmative action goals with their existing criteria.
George Washington was a certain kind of man doing a certain kind of job for which he was naturally suited and qualified. Denzel is a wonderful actor who is probably not suited to lead men into a horrendous war against a vast and superior enemy. But because he is black, if he were in the military, it is possible he could be promoted in rank solely to meet affirmative action guidelines.
I don't think I've explained this well, but I do think we are being asked routinely to suspend our disbelief and accept things that don't make any sense for the sake of "leveling the playing field."
America's new work place = using the EEOC (or attorneys) to CASH IN
In 2010, the EEOC forced American businesses to pay over 400 million to settle their bully claims.
Here’s one example.
Anyone REALLY think this guy was tormented like that? Not a chance.
68% to 75% (hard to get exact data here) of the EEOC 100,000 complaints backlog are based on discrimination complaints (my guess, almost all are black). These cases are just too easy to set up today. All you need to be is a minority (specifically black), get a few co-workers to claim they said or did something to make your happy working environment "hostile," then you file a complaint & cash in.
Every year over the last 16, the EEOC's office has seen an increase in the number of discrimination complaints.
Oh, another piece of pertinence I discovered: This is the complete text of Dodd-Frank bill [over] regulating America’s financial services industry. Drop down to SEC. 342. OFFICE OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION.
Look what the DEMS have in store for every regulatory financial institution in America.
For those who don’t want to read it, I’ll sum it up. Minorities and females will get their OWN office inside each regulatory financial institution, complete with a “Directors” title (absolutely NO white males allowed here). The offices will also be staffed, of course, creating the need for 1000s of useless jobs. What a NIGHTMARE. Each of these “Directors” will now be a singular bully force in each of these following agencies:
--Securities and Exchange Commission,
--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
--Federal Housing Finance Agency,
--12 Federal Reserve regional banks,
--the Board of Governors of the Fed,
--the National Credit Union Administration,
--Comptroller of the Currency,
…all will get their own ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.’ People, America is a LOST cause! Recognize it. There needs to be a friendly REBELLION. Start OVER
"Anyone REALLY think this guy was tormented like that? Not a chance."
It's attitudes like this that allow such torment to continue unchecked. The torment was proven in a court of law.
It's nice to be an able-bodied member of a majority. We can try to claim that discrimination doesn't happen, because we never see it ourselves. But it does happen, and we don't generally see it because it usually happens to someone else, someone not like ourselves.
You don't think people can be mean? If they think they can get away with it, oh, yes they can.
My point was to demonstrate how easy it really is to set up a discrimination case. You need first to establish a “hostile” environment. To do this you must then show a “pattern’ of behavior that is directed at you based on some criteria "created" in the Civil rights Act 0f 1964 (or its companion laws). Anyone can create a hostile environment if they want. Just file a complaint against your supervisor ... and you’re now a pariah. Just like this female “fire fighter” did. EASY MONEY!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met … 56764.html
I can tell you, based on a very large sample I’ve seen, examining these complaints ALL basically are very subjective. Example: A women claims gender harassment and uses “stalking” as one of her reasons for filing her complaint. What is the stalking? When she leaves work and goes to her car, this same guy is always following her; every day. His car is in the parking lot too. Ergo, he has no choice but to “follow” her (real case. she won over a million dollar settlement). On and on these made-up allegations of harassment go. Of course the reason (for filing) is the BIG jackpot. The FAT check waiting to be settled on. The fact that cases are settled (no court case) is now very common knowledge. Lawyers (and the EEOC) have become very skilled shakedown artists. The REAL victims? American businesses.
Again, over 100,000 cases are now backlogged at the EEOC. It was 50,00 just a few years ago. Also, this figure doesn’t include all hundreds of private law firms also pursuing cases of discrimination. It’s HUGE business!
BTW, discrimination, there is NOTHING wrong with it. It is a good thing. It provides for the group and perpetuates the group - among many other benefits. The word itself has just been “made” to be pejorative. This word “discrimination” when used in conjunction w/ ‘women & minorities,’ is what I call a Pavlov’s Dog’s conditioned response word (one of many) . It’s used to make white people bow their heads, shuffle their feet, and SUBMIT. Substitute ‘Historical Group Recognition (HGR)’, and LOOK, you’ve now taken the sting out of the argument. A perceived wrong is now made into perceived right. And, yeah, trial lawyers will get MIGHTY angry if white people start substituting their Pavlov Dogs conditioned response words for synonyms/ phrases that suggest group recognition is the RIGHT course (it certainly ws throughout all of human history up until 1964). How deep of a hole is America going to dig itself into until it recognizes it made a BIG mistake with these Compulsory Inclusionism laws?
by Steven Escareno 7 years ago
Although I can't say I agree with this article, as I could list a TON of contradictions about it. However, I'll gladly keep my mouth shut to see what you hubbers out there have to say about it first, before I put in my two cents. Anyway, here's the link if you want to check it out,...
by preacherdon 7 years ago
Is affirmative action still necessary? It is argued that affirmative action is no longer necessary. Those who are against it say that such regualtions are the reasons employers take their jobs oversseas. Though you can't legislate morality, I think that affirmative action is still necessary because...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 20 months ago
I changed from question to forum to allow commenters to have more space to express their opinions. I initiated the question, and now forum, to discuss reactions to Michelle Obama's statement at the DNC. Her words: “I wake up every morning in a house that was built by...
by albertovich 6 years ago
Does discrimination still fly in your neighborhood, town or city?In a way we are all racist, predigest, bias but why?
by Velvetine 11 months ago
Why don't most churches teach people how to cast out demons like Jesus did?Didn't Jesus command his followers to do so?
by Ann810 18 months ago
Is Donald Trump our first Christian President?Much of history says that our previous US Presidents were never of the Christian belief.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|