Variations on a theme (thread): chivalry

April23 said:
If that wasn't the case stereotypes wouldn't hold any water. Anyways, what is it then?
Click to expand...
Stereotypes rarely hold water. My ethnicity is a personal matter - currently quite a touchy one - but suffice it to say affirmative action programs have been available to me my entire life.

wonko80 said:
If you think just because they get voted to public office that they will stop skewing things to whatever ethnicity they prefer, then you're very naive. There are always loopholes and ways around laws.
Click to expand...
So people are finding loopholes around the CRA? I don't see government discriminating based on race, do you? There are plenty of racists politicians still around, are any of them still breaking that law?

No.
You're basically empowering our society to become more segregated. Seems rather backwards to me.
Click to expand...
Yes. It would be empowering society to make up its own mind and it's seems fairly obvious that in American culture today nothing terrible would happen. The majority of this country is fine with diversity and hiring folks of all different races and religions and genders and creeds. There are a few bigots out there and they should have the choice to be bigots with their property just like we have the choice not to patronize them.

The nation has matured to the point that segregation on a grand scale simply wouldn't occur, not even in the deep south.
Weren't you the one that posted some threads about going to work and all that? If so, those pictures showed your arm, and it looked like the arm of a white person. I know you are a male, so it wasn't a completely baseless statement.
Click to expand...
So do all brown people look alike to you? :p Can't tell the difference 'tween a mexican, arab and hindu? :fly:

I'm male, no doubt, but since females make up more than half the population they're not really a minority, are they?
 
You have yet to explain to me any real benefit of permitting wanton discrimination in business aside from an ambiguous sense of liberty. Would you permit owners of private business to tamper with employees paychecks too? After all if they don't want to get screwed they can simply find a job elsewhere. Why all the unnecessary regulations and legal precedents? What would be gained from all of this other than even more turnover and unemployment in the lower and middle classes?
 
Last edited:
Sarcasmo said:
You have yet to explain to me any real benefit of permitting wanton discrimination in business aside from an ambiguous sense of liberty. Would you permit owners of private business to tamper with employees paychecks too? After all if they don't want to get screwed they can simply find a job elsewhere. Why all the unnecessary regulations and legal precedents? What would be gained from all of this other than even more turnover and unemployment in the lower and middle classes?
Click to expand...

That pretty much covers it. I hold that sense of liberty in higher regard than political correctness or the feeling of entitlement that some have. I believe it's more important for people to have choice than it is for government to legislate morality. Even bigots and racists should be allowed the freedom to choose.

As for your question, no I wouldn't. Permitting employers to tamper with employee paychecks would constitute theft. The basic premise is that we are all the sole owners of our own bodies and thus deserve any and all fruits of the labor we perform. If an employer starts taking money from his employees he's preventing them from reaping the benefits of the time and effort they have put into the job. If a racist employer refuses to hire a black woman he's not taking anything from her because she has not performed any work for him.
 
FlyNavy said:
If a racist employer refuses to hire a black woman he's not taking anything from her because she has not performed any work for him.
Click to expand...

I understand, but keep in mind that it would be very hard for certain people to find and retain employment. For example crippled people, or ones who are blind. The laws exist to protect certain classes of people and give them a fair shot to provide for themselves. And it has to be blanket legislation because it would be prejudicial if the government protected some and not others.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
It's not completely dead around here, and I like it.

I always hold doors open fer ladies, and see others doing it too.

Also giving up a seat on the subway for someone who needs it more, see that fairly often too.


The best one I saw recently was this wheelchair bound feller who lives close to me - he was trying to get on the sidewalk and failing miserably. A guy in a shiny BMW in the lane he was in blocked traffic and made sure he got on the sidewalk ok.
Click to expand...

That's more being curtious or nice, not chivilrous. Chivilry would be to walk on the side of the sidewalk closest to the street so the woman you are walking with doesn't get splashed. Doing the coat trick or picking her up over mud puddles. Door opening and chair offering and standing when she enters or exits a room are, of course, the standards. But these activities have to happen almost subliminally for it to work.

Also being chivilrous would be to tailor chats so as not to discuss business or swear. The woman should be able to enter a conversation if she wants to, so the conversation should be something she knows. If you must discuss business or be rude, politely ask the females of the room to be escorted out.

Also, things like waiting until she is the first to eat at a meal before yourself. In 21st century terms, allow her to use the bathroom, after you have verified she has a clean set of towels and toilet paper to use.
Not necessarily curtious, but above that.
 
wonko80 said:
They could then fire you for getting cancer because you smoked. Or getting sick because you didn't wash your hands enough.
Click to expand...

That's why some insurance companies choose not to issue insurance and in the food industry, you can get fired for not washing your hands. If it is part of their rules, you would be insubordinate and therefore fire-worthy.
 
wonko80 said:
People choose to drive to work. If they get in an accident and need to be hospitalized, it's their damn fault and should be fired.
Click to expand...

No, they could have chosen to ride a bus or some other mass transit or even a taxi. In the eyes of the business, the employees are expected to be working at a certain given time. How they transport and prepare themselves for that is their problem/fault.

If you are in a car accident, you should hope your company allows you sick days with little notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back