Reverse discrimination

[Mallefunction]

We had that problem in my school. There were 3 kids with straight A's in my class (I being one of them). One of them as well as myself were white. Guess which kid always got lauded by the school, getting in the paper with all the awards?

Also, they'd take some kids who were somewhat talented and threw them in front of other kids just because of race (mostly the native kids) I get that diversity is important, but it's fucked up that they didn't celebrate our accomplishments WITH them.

 

[franconbean]

At the end of the day, its still discrimination, whether it's "Positive" discrimination or not.
Liberal society is supposed to reward the hard-working (and to a lesser extent, the talented). that's not to say that the OP isn't those things, but flouting an individual who would probably perform better? That's not how its supposed to work, and at the end of the day, it doesn't produce acceptance for diversity.

 

[Prosis]

I think its fine that they hired based on gender.

Either they hire a woman simply because she's a woman, or they get sued/bad rep by someone for not having any women employed (which would imply that the company is sexist against women). Sure, best case scenario would be that they would hire the better qualified person. But preventing lawsuits and bad press is more important than getting a better worker.

Is it discrimination? Yes.

Is it unfair? Yes.

Is it wrong? It can be argued either way. The requirement for diversity also prevents companies from hiring solely from a certain race/gender, or from discriminating. Sometimes this benefits the minority race/gender (of the company, in this case being women), and sometimes it harms the majority race/gender (in this case being the more experienced guy).

I can understand the whole "harming your self esteem" thing. But I wouldn't complain. Imagine how the guy would think, "She got the job, despite me being more qualified for it, AND she complains that she got the job."


If I were in that position, personally, I would be happy to have a job in such a bad economy. I would also give 120% at work, to ensure that my co-workers don't regret turning down the experienced guy, and prove that I'm a hard and good worker, not just "that chick we picked up to fulfill quota"

 

[euclides34]

If they promote diversity to avoid a lawsuit, that means that they really don't care at all and would rather keep up apperaences than actually do anything in a real or meaningful way. now I'm well aware of the biases and prejudices that exist in our society, but affrimative action and realted hireing practices will only nuture new prejudices and biases. not to mention the shear amount of resentment it will engender. this really only goes towards my overarching thesis of human behavoir, which is: the one thing we excell at above all else is fucking ourselves over.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

Regular discrimination, still not okay, but shouldn't whoever runs the company hire whoever they want, based on whatever criteria they decide? They'll have to face the consequenses if they seem sexist, racist or whatever, but if they want a female engineer, and one applies, then I see no reason not to hire them. It's their loss if the candidate has less experience.

 

[Frankster]

Ah yes... These kinda stories are what fuel the "male whites are the new minority" way of thinking for some.

I'm not sure how widespread this is but some companies do indeed factor in gender and ethnicity when looking for a new employee,it just makes the company look good and allows them to publish all sorts of statistics to prove the company is awesome.

I know not whether it is correct, all I know is OP has nothing to feel bad about, not your fault the company adopted this pc mentality and you had no impact on the decision.

 

[Qitz]

Welcome to Affirmative Action! Hope you enjoy being told that your such an inferior person that you need every bit of help you can get.

Granted, when it was first implemented it was needed to help keep discrimination to a minimum but it's not that big of a requirement now. Giving people things automatically simply based on race, gender, anything besides talent or skill is just plain BS.

 

[DazBurger]

Theres no such thing as reverse discrimination, just discrimination.

 

[SeanSeanston]

Welcome to Affirmative Action! Hope you enjoy being told that your such an inferior person that you need every bit of help you can get.

Yes, that's another major point to make: How ironic such things are, since it probably sets back the progress of women and belittles them more than it does harm to anything else.

One example is that this results in more unqualified women doing jobs poorly. Leading people to associate women with incapability and not being fit for proper jobs or able to acquire jobs by proper means.

But it's all part of the carefully balanced machinery that keeps our modern world going around exactly like those who run it would like... so it's much a muchness.

 

[Jakub324]

You're clearly good enough, or you wouldn't have got the job, right?

 

[esperandote]

I have always dissaprooved that, but being honest probably your boss is being pressured to hire diversifiedly (word?) to avoid lawsuits and stuff.

 

[Fledge]

I funking hate employers like this that are so scared of appearing discriminative, that they discrminate to avoid it...

 

[Kingsman]

Finally, something we can agree on.

By giving "opportunities" to less-qualified minorities, you don't address the problem of discrimination in a workplace- you acknowledge it by specifying that there is indeed a difference between people, and that that difference is more important to deal with than actually hiring people who are more qualified for a job.

You want to be tolerant? Be color-blind. Take a look at hard facts, hire based on them, and nothing else. We start bowing our heads to give minorities more room, we will literally see arguments for letting people get away with murder "for the greater good."

Not like we don't see those already, though...

 

[caselj01]

I'll let you decide for yourself whether you think this is a legitimate argument or not, but a "diversity" policy such as you are describing OP, is often justified by saying that a broader spectrum of people is better for solving problems/coming up with ideas because there are more people from different backgrounds or with different ways of thinking. So you could argue that you wern't just hired for your ovaries, but because you are adding a "new perspective" to the division which that other guy was unable to provide.

Although as far as I'm concerned, any gender discrimination of this kind is a much smaller problem than those people who manage to get a job just because their uncle owns the company or something like that. God those people shit me.

 

[tahrey]

Well, lucky for you I guess, to land a job in this economy... problem is that might be what a lot of other people are thinking if they find out. IE lucky to be born with the right set of chromosomes to (unwittingly) take advantage of a short sighted HR policy which favoured that characteristic over actual suitability for the job.

Or, who knows? Did you do any kind of aptitude tests, etc? Maybe your performance in that, or your specific set of qualifications and experience, actually meant you were the more suitable candidate despite the length of the other applicant's CV? A long work history is no guarantee of skill or knowledge. They could just be having a dumb joke with you that "of course we hired you... SOMEONE had to even up this sausage party a bit".

There may be a touch of regular discrimination at work, too. As teching has quite a pastoral, interpersonal, customer service element to it, they maybe thought that hiring someone with better "inherent" skills in that regard (to get into their mindset here; for the moment, I'm not espousing my own personally held views) would be quite valuable to improve the client experience as well as, yknow, making them look better. Because women can talk and emphasise better than guys, right?

I dunno, I wouldn't chuck the job away over it, guilt or otherwise. Unless you see the guy destitute in a couple years time when there were other jobs you were also being interviewed for with a good chance of success (or having even got offers since taking this one)... It's their decision, which you took advantage of without knowing the full implications. Fortune has rolled in your favour, let the ones who made the call live with it. Hopefully you'll do an excellent job and it'll prove to be the best piece of quasi sexism they ever indulged in.

 

[cookyy2k]

snip

You know what I think is wrong? Your boss actually flat out telling everyone this. You are qualified for the job so no reason you shouldn't get it. The lack of back up from management and the fact it's been made clear to all that you're there due to gender not qualifications undermines you. In fact I'd say there is a good deal of "forwards" discrimination going on as well. Your boss hired you and has then gone on to patronise you due to gender.

 

[TheSmokingFox]

Middle class white man guilt, they kinda feel like they need to apoligize, to everyone, all the time.

 

[bakan]

He is probably more expensive because he is more experienced.
You obviously can do the job but only got it because you are cheaper and a women to fit the quota.

It's discrimination and that is never good.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I don't think it's acceptable to base a decision on race or gender. It just prolongs the inaccurate stereotype that minorities or (in this case) women are inferior to the majority and men by default, so they deserve a break.

All I can say is that you work hard to earn the position and be acknowledge by your efforts and hard work rather than your gender.

 

[Captain_Fantastic]

i cant stand that the idea of beating back discrimination is in itself causing it
the best example i can think of is how the native american/aboriginal kids where im from get paid to go to summerschool for classes they for them most part have allready completed even if the family can afford college for them. while the not as well off kids of a different group have to go to work to pay for it

they also get government paid lunches delivered to the school and government funded field trips

and do the rest of us get that..... no, what kind of equal opportunity is that