Discrimination against white heterosexual males in academia (etc.) in Australia

I posted the text below in an old thread many months ago, and expected a torrent of scathing remarks, but also a few enlightening responses from suitably experienced people. I suspect that unfortunately no one much saw the text though, because the original thread I posted it in was essentially long 'dead and buried' by that point. So I'm posting it here, as a 'new topic', in the hope that it will attract some comments—preferably from peeps with relevant experience, not just simplistic 'gut feelings' and 'knee-jerk reactions' from naive idealists. Here's what I posted:

"… thatguyfromthatplace (refreshingly/commendably) had the stones to state candidly, clearly and concisely what any white heterosexual male who has been employed in any vaguely 'academic' field for the last 30 years will tell you. We have been actively discriminated against for decades in Australia, when it comes to employment/promotion into higher-paying/upper-level positions, in favour of so-called 'minority groups'. Often—completely erroneously—even simply being a woman qualifies as being a member of a 'minority group'; even though there are more women in Australia than there are men!

There are numerous examples of this now long-institutionalised practice, which is officially dubbed 'positive discrimination', actually written into enforceable employment policy in Australia in many diverse contexts. There is simply no argument about whether it goes on in Australia … quite the opposite, active discrimination against NON-minority groups (i.e., white heterosexual males; any deviation from that 'trifecta' generally qualifies any individual as a member of a 'minority group') is actually mandated in numerous employment contexts. Some of the obvious ones are universities and numerous government work-places, but there are many more.

It's bizarre to me, and many other white heterosexual males that the answer to perceived historical discrimination against 'minority groups' (including 'all women', utterly erroneously) has been deemed to be, for the last few decades, to 'swing the pendulum back the other way and severely, actively, and officially institutionalise/sanction (and in many cases, worse; actually mandate) discrimination against white heterosexual males."

Comments

  • +4

    Not true, have to also be old….

    • -3

      Just pretend to be gay/queer/whatever. There is a procedure in game theory named Divide and Choose which can be applied to mitigate this issue. If you don't have a say as to how resources are divided you should have a say as to which group you belong.

  • +5

    Oh boy

  • +25

    Cherry picking + Confirmation bias…

  • +32

    tl:dr "how dare they not give me the privileged treatment that i have long taken for granted and i should be restored to my rightful place at the pinnacle of society as the superior race/gender/sexual orientation"

    • +8

      This is exactly the complete 'knee-jerk' lack of understanding that I expected to witness the first time I posted these truths, d-who. More astute/experienced readers who live in the real world will immediately recognise the massive and completely erroneous extrapolations you have subjectively projected onto what I actually said above. My post above is not about me (I'm way to old for it to apply to me). It is about young white heterosexual males who are today/currently trying to initiate a career for themselves/get ahead in various fields of science or academia more broadly. For these young guys, the 'playing field' is absolutely not 'level'; and these are guys who certainly never benefited from, or contributed to any 'white male privilege' whatsoever. These are people who are being actively and severely discriminated against, essentially as scapegoats for things that happened decades before they were even born.

      • +3

        As a relatively young male working in research and technology, I absolutely have benefited from my privilege. Even the fact I have very few female colleagues to compete against is a huge advantage to my career.

        If women are under represented, then chances are there’s some cultural or systemic issue with that industry. Affirmative action is the price of trying to fix that problem, not some retrospective punishment as you see it.

        If you’re artificially lifting representation to 50% then you’re not making it any harder for men relative to a world where there’s no female participation problem. The delta between this affirmation action and no action - is your systematic privilege.

        • -13

          Erm, Christoff … are you sure you are genuinely working in 'research and technology'? I ask because of the following statement that you make above:

          'If you’re artificially lifting representation to 50% then you’re not making it any harder for men relative to a world where there’s no female participation problem.'

          That statement is inherently logistically flawed in multiple ways, and as such, it would be described by any competent researcher/scientist in lay terms as, erm, 'utter BS' (soz to be so frank). Don't take my word for it though. Ask some of your colleagues; the ones that actually are scientists/researchers. They will gently point out the errors in your wording/'logic', I'm sure.

          Happy trails.

          • +2

            @GnarlyKnuckles: As a relatively young male working in research and technology

            DOUBT.

          • +2

            @GnarlyKnuckles: @GnarlyKnuckles: I gave you a genuine response and you responded with personal attacks. You can have a fair-minded disagreement with my premise that no barriers would result in equal female participation in STEM. But if for argument’s sake you accept this, hopefully you can see the point I was making.

            • -9

              @DisabledUser288697: Erm … there is no personal attack there Cristoff. If you think that me pointing out the inherent lack of logic in your argument, and commenting that someone who purports to 'work in research and technology' would be unlikely to construct such a flawed argument is a 'personal attack', then I suggest that you need to 'toughen up, buttercup' … and that's not a personal attack either; it is merely advice. I regret the fact that you felt personally attacked, by I certainly did not personally attack you.

              Peace out.

              • +3

                @GnarlyKnuckles:

                are you sure you are genuinely working in 'research and technology'?

                Your comment seems to imply that Christoffel is either lying about their field of employment or does not know what they do.
                Unless there is another interpretation of this that I have missed, it seems to be an insulting comment to make, and hence probably why it was viewed as a personal attack

                • +2

                  @AndrewCh: What I was getting at (albeit a bit subtly/trying not to blatantly call Christoff an, erm … 'porky-pier') was this:

                  He states only that he is '… working in research and technology'.

                  This could mean any one of a great many things (he could be the receptionist at a medical centre, he could be an IT dude at a research institute, etc.). I was subtly inquiring as to whether he actually has a science degree; because much of what he has said would generally not be the type of logically flawed stuff any thoroughly trained scientist would say.

            • +4

              @DisabledUser288697: Do men and women on average have equal interest in and ability at all tasks?

              • @Scrooge McDuck: Certainly not at the moment. If you could theoretically remove all gender biases - I’m not sure how intellectual preferences and skills would map out. From what I understand there’s little good science proving any inherent differences in male and female brains. Physical differences obviously exist and would impact suitably for some jobs, but I don’t yet see the argument for it explaining a lack of women in STEM, that appears more cultural to me. But open to evidence.

                https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x

                • +1

                  @DisabledUser288697: One can Google for published papers which conclude for and also against cognitive differences between sexes. So referring to them will barely convince anyone of the opposing view.

                  Personally, I don't see how a body which is adapted physically differently would not also adapt a different control centre. Testosterone, which hugely impacts an individual's behaviour (as do other sex hormones but in different ways), is an order of magnitude higher in men than in women. Conversely, estradiol is an order of magnitude higher in premenopausal women. And progesterone fluctuates between an order of magnitude higher and parity with men across the phases of the menstrual cycle.

        • +21

          Underrepresentation is not evidence of systemic prejudice.

          There's a reason I'm not a hairdresser or interior decorator or wedding planner, and it's not because of gender roles or other prejudice.

          Your statement about female participation problem and artificially lifting representation begs the question that numbers would be equal without any prejudice or discrimination whatsoever (excluding based on ability).

          Unsound arguments lead to incorrect conclusions.

          • -2

            @ozbjunkie: Yes my argument relies on there being equal men and women in STEM if all cultural and structural barriers are removed.

            You disagree. So why do you think Australia has such a low female representation in STEM? And why is this not the case in other countries?

            • +5

              @DisabledUser288697: It is the case in other countries.
              I follow a few women based in STEM in other countries on twitter (mainly tech and science related).
              About 2 or 3 years ago it was a big thing and they mentioned many times there wasnt alot of women in STEM.
              Not once did anyone ever mention that the problem was due to white male privileged.
              The common thought was that it was because women just didnt pursue a career in those fields as often as men did.
              Their whole thing was to try and encourage girls to see it as a career path in schools and such.
              They collaborated on ways to try and encourage girls to have an interest in STEM fields and make it known that it was a viable path for them.

              • @PAEz: Yes low female participation in STEM is the norm, but there’s a pretty wide spectrum. Interestingly middle eastern countries tend to have more equal representation in STEM than the west. And they’re hardly known for their women’s rights.

                Absolutely running programs to encourage more women to study STEM is a sensible step. I’d like to see more positive portrayals in culture, more Greys Anatomy’s rather than Big Bang Theory’s to increase STEM appeal.

                • +2

                  @DisabledUser288697: Christoff:

                  If capable women who actually want to 'do' STEM here in Australia are somehow being discriminated against in preference to capable men, I suppose the type of 'social engineering via popular culture' that you are evidently advocating could be considered justified (by some). I.e. to try and change the mindset of those in charge of doing the hiring and firing/university course admissions/scholarship allocations etc.

                  Do you have any evidence that either of those premises are true though, currently, here in Australia?

                  What you seem to be alluding to in a round about sort of way though, is trying to use popular culture (i.e. TV shows and the like) to change/influence what women actually want to do. I very much doubt the wizdom of that.

            • +4

              @DisabledUser288697: It is both present in other countries, and evidence suggests with even greater female "liberation" for lack of a better word, the differentiation between interests and work pursuits of males and females gets larger, not smaller, such as in Sweden.

              I think that despite all the financial and educational concessions to encourage women on STEM fields women in Australia are underrepresented in STEM die to differences in interests. That idea sits well with my lived experience - my girlfriend doesn't want to hear about how a computer program works even if I pay her to listen to me.

          • +6

            @ozbjunkie: Yes, this. For more than a decade now female med students have substantially outnumbered male ones (at Melbourne University at least), and since the dawn of time the vast majority of teaching graduates have been female. Does this mean there is 'discrmination against men' with regard to entry into these courses? Of course not. Entry is determined by an ATAR score, not an interview/panel etc. The gender disparities simply reflect the numbers of people who choose to study these two things.

        • +12

          Are suicide rates, incarceration rates, and numbers of garbage truck drivers much higher for men due to systemic sexism?

          • -6

            @Lurk Hartog: Quite possibly yes. Is there a biological explanation for any of these things? If not it could be cultural.

            • -1

              @DisabledUser288697: Oh wow Christoff. After a statement like that, I now find it impossible to believe that you 'work in research and technology'. Soz.

              Peace out.

              • +1

                @GnarlyKnuckles: How is my statement controversial, I said almost nothing. Those disparities are a result of either nature (biology), systemic nurture (culture) or some combination there of.

                How could saying I’m uncertain, possibly give you concrete evidence that I don’t work in the field that I do actually work in. Which by the way, isn’t biology or medicine so I’m not going to claim expertise on the matter.

                Given you clearly know the answer please illuminate me, and if you can share some journal or arXiv papers backing your position even better.

                • @DisabledUser288697: Before I go down this road Christoff, may I respectfully ask one question, that you are of course absolutely free to decline to answer if you don't want to. I am only asking it because your answer will dictate the way in which I respond to you (i.e. with regard to 'assumed knowledge'):

                  Do you actually have a science degree of any kind?

                  • +2

                    @GnarlyKnuckles: Yes I have science degrees in Mathematics and Physics. Which is to say absolutely no formal qualifications in the topic at hand. Unless I accidentally slept through the lecture on gender studies of garbage trucks.

                    • +1

                      @DisabledUser288697: On the contrary, those are what I consider to be 'extremely high-powered science degrees', that are inherently related to the topic at hand. Your maths degree renders you inherently qualified to understand concepts relating to proportions/statistics/etc. (highly relevant to this discussion, I would argue). Your physics degree renders you inherently capable of understanding both simple and abstract concepts of 'cause and effect'; which are again, highly relevant to this discussion, I would argue.

                      Wow, I wasn't expecting that you would have these degrees, based on your previous posts. It might be that I read them too quickly, and thus missed some of the subtleties contained in them. I think I will now re-read them and re-evaluate …

                      • +3

                        @GnarlyKnuckles: Honestly I don’t think the pieces of paper are too important here, I think these topics should be open to everyone to discuss. And for what it’s worth, I’m not even sure affirmative action is a good idea. There’s so many additional problems with it.

                        I was originally just trying to explain the rationale for it. It’s not about punishing young males for sins of previous generations. It’s about trying to account for hidden biases that hold women (insert other minorities here) back.

          • +6

            @Lurk Hartog: Yes. Men are less likely to talk about their feelings, particularly sadness because it is seen as effeminate and “weak”. “Crying is for little girls” etc. getting help is seen as weak. So you bottle it all up and eventually suicide may be the outcome.
            Incarceration rates can also be looked at through a gendered lens - people often find it harder to believe women are bad/violent/cheating the system because they are soft/feminine/caring etc. It would also be useful to note that a 5 foot woman probably isn’t going to start doing violent crimes because they couldn’t overpower majority of people. It’s probably more important to look at race when you’re talking incarceration anyhow, or even SES.
            And garbage trucks? Come on dude. I don’t see baby girl outfits with cartoon trucks on, do you? I don’t see play sets with trucks in being marketed frequently to girls. And yet they are to boys.

            You can come up with any number of instances in which men are over or underrepresented - systemic sexism is rooted in our society. You need to be more thorough in unpacking sociological ideas and not just skim the top when it suits your narrative. If you haven’t got the idea yet, I doubt you ever will, so it was pretty pointless of me making this comment anyway.

        • +6

          If you’re artificially lifting representation to 50% then you’re not making it any harder for men

          Derp

      • And i refer you again to my original summary of your post. What you perceive as lack of level playing field is entirely anecdotal and subjective. If you can produce some objective evidence rather than the 'woe is me world is out to get me' attitude you may get more receptive ears

        • +1

          d-who … Re:

          'If you can produce some objective evidence … (etc.)'

          Kindly refer to my extensive post below in which I discuss what are euphemistically/vaguely/ambiguously termed 'special measures’, in numerous Australian law acts. This is the means by which positive discrimination against white males (and in many cases, all males) is enshrined in Australian law, and can be openly practiced/engaged in by any employer who chooses to, ranging from the Australian Federal Government right down to small businesses.

          • @GnarlyKnuckles: I also recalled another legal ruling that appalled me about a year ago d-who, check this objective evidence out:

            https://www.9news.com.au/national/v-line-gets-nod-to-target-...

            Note that only 15% of the peeps who actually wanted/applied for the job were women. Yet what V-line was given the 'legal green-light' to do was ignore the other 85% (the blokes) and offer all the jobs to that 15%; irrespective of qualifications.

            You couldn't make this stuff up, it's that ridiculous …

    • +17

      “When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

      • Equality based on inaccurate arguments and statistics is like the blind leading blind.

      • -3

        Sheesh wieders, could you possibly think of a more irrelevant statement to make?

      • +5

        How are straight white males applying for graduate positions today accustomed to privilege in hiring?

    • +4

      So by this summation (which I don't believe what OP is trying to say), what you (DrWho) are saying is because the pendulum was against male in the first place so the way to restore is to make the other extreme. Discrimination fought with another discrimination.

      That's what something wrong in this country.

      • +2

        no that was my summary of the underlying assumptions and attitudes underpinning OP's post. what conclusion you draw from that summary is reflective of your inherent experiences and biases. Fascinating isnt it

        • Yo Dr Who

          Re 'that was my summary of the underlying assumptions and attitudes underpinning OP's post':

          May I respectfully ask how you purportedly know 'the underlying assumptions and attitudes underpinning [my] post'? The mere contention is pompous, not to mention arrogant/ludicrous/laughable/numerous other adjectives.

          There is no 'fascinating' interpretation here, Mr Baker.

          Preferably, here peeps simply state what they surmise/believe/have experienced etc., in plain language/with factual examples, and we discuss it. Generally, no one erroneously claims to know what 'the underlying assumptions and attitudes' of other people are … for relatively obvious reasons.

    • +1

      tl:dr "how dare they not give me the privileged treatment that i have long taken for granted and i should be restored to my rightful place at the pinnacle of society as the superior race/gender/sexual orientation"

      Rather, how dare they not give me the privileged treatment that my dad/grand dad/male ancestors have long taken for granted.

      • +2

        I'm the first in my family line to go to university and get a good paying job. Parents and grandparents grew up in a wartorn country watching their village burn down, saw their family/friends hung in front of them, lived in poverty and hunger most of their childhood.

        I'm still waiting for someone to point out when my privilege as a white male started because I'm sure as hell not feeling it.

        Not every white person is rich and successful, and not every black person is poor and helpless. That kind of racial stereotyping has no place in this world.

  • +11

    i can't wait to read the comments tomorrow

  • +14

    I can confidently say as a white male that I've had a very privileged life and have had every opportunity presented to me, same for my father and his father before that. Same can't be said about the women in my families past and the same can't be said for minority families past and present. Makes perfect sense to give more opportunities to those that didn't have it in the past.

    This doesn't seem like something you should spend your time worrying about, you'll be fine.

    • +2

      Again, another post by someone who has completely missed my point. Not only 'will' I be fine, I am fine, but that is utterly beside the point. Your allusions to '… my father and his father before that' and ' the women in my families past' are clear demonstrations that you have either not read my post, or you have not understood it. Your comment warrants this reiteration of the end of another comment, above:

      [My post pertains to] young white heterosexual males who are today/currently trying to initiate a career for themselves/get ahead in various fields of science or academia more broadly. For these young guys, the 'playing field' is absolutely not 'level'; and these are guys who certainly never benefited from, or contributed to any 'white male privilege' whatsoever. These are people who are being actively and severely discriminated against, essentially as scapegoats for things that happened decades before they were even born.

      • +14

        thouard28 said that as a white male, he's had every opportunity presented to him. He refuted your statement in his first sentence, and then proceeded to give why he thinks it's a more level playing field these days compared to his ancestors.

        • +15

          Ah, Nato, seems you've also completely missed the point of Op's post - to rustle up an echo chamber and denounce all those that go against it!

        • +2

          My point is that thouard28 also said:

          '… same for my father and his father before that.;

          and:

          'Same can't be said about the women in my families past …'

          and

          'Makes perfect sense to give more opportunities to those that didn't have it in the past.'

          That last one is the kicker. That amounts to:

          'This gender and/or racial group was discriminated against in generations gone by, so in this current generation, let's treat them preferentially, and in doing so (unavoidably) discriminate against white males in the process—because then on the balance of history, that will kinda' "even things up".'

          Astute thinkers/analysts will realise that this is a blatant case of punishing/discriminating against the current generation of young people, in a severely misguided effort/attempt to 'atone for the historical sins' of past generations. It has the potential to perpetuate a vicious circle of discrimination, and as I've said above, the simple old adage that "two wrongs don't make a right" holds true here.

      • +1

        If this issue doesn't pertain to you, then why are you so vehemently against it? Why does your take matter more than all the people who you are telling to STFU because the issue doesn't directly affect them?

        • jatblack: Erm, your post is somewhat garbled/'cryptic', but I will try to decipher it.

          Re: 'If this issue doesn't pertain to you, then why are you so vehemently against it?'

          Is it genuinely surprising to you that peeps can actually care about things that do not directly affect them? Surely you are not that simplistic of mind? Do you yourself only care about issues that directly affect you? That would be an extremely ethnocentric/self-serving way to live, and if that is genuinely true of you, then I feel for you.

          Re: "Why does your take matter more than all the people who you are telling to STFU because the issue doesn't directly affect them?"

          Unfortunately that is so badly written that I genuinely cannot unscramble it/ascertain what it was you were actually trying to say. I did try, I promise. One thing I will say though, is I certainly have not told anyone who has contributed anything to the discussion to 'STFU' (assuming that I am correctly guessing what the intended meaning of that acronym is). What on earth prompted you to falsely state that I had?

      • +2

        I understand your point but I think your chances of getting sensical replies on here are pretty slim. Why don’t you post this topic on Reddit?

        It’s not relevant to your concern but white male students are discriminated against elite college admissions in the US. This is not news though. When I was a student, already over 50% of student body was a minority group.

      • +1

        Again, you are saying these people are actively being discriminated against and I’m telling you, as someone in science, and with countless mates in STEM - we haven’t been discriminated against.

        • Let me clarify thouard28 … when you assert that you are 'in science', do you mean that you actually have a science degree?

          If you do, then you will know how utterly irrelevant the personal experience of a single person (you) is when it comes to determining whether something goes on or not, and the prevalence of it (i.e. you are essentially alluding to a 'case study'; sample size: n = 1!). Similarly, I find it bizarre that you feel that you can speak off the cuff/anecdotally for all of your 'countless mates in STEM', and actually expect anyone to place any weight on that. Such an approach to 'fact finding' is ludicrously unscientific.

    • +3

      Makes perfect sense to give more opportunities to those that didn't have it in the past.

      So are you OK with group punishment applied intergenerationally?

      Every person is conceived owing to a decision made by one biological mother and one biological father.

    • +4

      This is purely anecdotal. I'm a white European male, my parents immigrated here because of a tyrannical government and war. Grandparents were slaughtered in their village. Great grandparents lived through a massive depression and famine. I myself have been the victim of trauma, poor health, and systemic barriers due to not knowing how to speak English when I arrived here.

      Where is my privilege?

      Privilige is an independent circumstance. To simply stereotype an entire race as people with privilege is not only absurd, it's inherently racist. That's like assuming every Black person is a fast runner or good rapper.

    • In which field of academia do you work?

  • +3

    Ima sit here with the popcorn 🍿

  • +18

    TLDR: any bargains on white male privilege?

    • +2

      Something something pink tax!! *TRIGGERED*

      • Something something in “SJW” clothing.

  • +28

    This is the lowest testosterone post I've seen on the forum. I looked through your post history and if that's how you act around your colleagues then…. well… I hate to break it to ya but the reason why you get discriminated against is less to do with how much you enjoy penis and more to do with your rock bottom, pseudo-intellectual personality.

    Maybe you should quit academia and get a real job instead, where they'll run you into the ground there too, to help you understand that the problem isn't your skin tone.

    • Sigh, I now see why the commenters so far are incorrectly assuming that I have posted a 'self-serving whinge' about my own 'plight' or some such. Rereading my post, it occurs to me that I should not have included the words 'We have been …'. Those three little words do in fact imply that I may be merely complaining about my own personal situation; whereas that is absolutely not the case. Personally I am fine 'academically' etc. … it is the young ambitious people currently moving through the honours/post-grad/'early career grant' systems who have the absolute misfortune to be white heterosexual males that I feel very sorry for; because here in Australia, they are currently so severely and actively discriminated against.

      • +5

        I can’t believe someone in Australia who claims to be in academia literally wrote “here in Australia, they are currently so severely and actively discriminated against” about young while hetero males. Do you also watch Sky News all day? Surely this whole thing is a troll, if not, wow. The other poster got it right with the “pseudo intellectual” thing.

        • The guy uses semicolons in place of commas where even a comma would form a (profanity) comma splice… and he adds single quotes around random words lol

          • @ausmechkeyboards: As a charitable gesture, I'll explain a few facts about quotation marks to you ausmech. Conventionally, in US English double quotation marks are used and in UK English (and Australian English) single quotation marks are used. Exceptions do arise though, when a sentence contains a word that itself contains a single quotation mark; for example because it is a contraction. In such cases it is often preferable/enhances readability to encompass that sentence in double quotation marks. For example:

            "I didn't lie" reads better that 'I didn't lie'.

            Re your misguided criticism about my use of semicolons vs. commas, if you do a bit of fact checking you will learn that strict rules that were taught in schools in the 1960s and earlier pertaining to the use of commas and semi-colons are no longer applicable; and they have not been for decades. Punctuation has evolved over the last 50 years. How did you not get this brief?

            • +2

              @GnarlyKnuckles: Dude the meth pipe you’re hitting might have you travelling back to the 1960s but you still have no idea what you’re talking about. It doesn’t matter how many words you put to it lol, this isn’t high school & and your punctuation is still objectively garbage.

              This empty essay you wrote just makes you a little bit more insufferable.

              • @ausmechkeyboards: Yo AusMuchs …

                Any astute participant reading the garbled 'English' above will realise that the jovial phrase 'fall down, witness' is appropriate here.

                Try again.

    • -3

      “Maybe you should quit academia and get a real job instead”

      I always love these comments, spouted by the ‘job holders’ in the ‘real world’ (you’re everywhere, typically conservative voters)
      Guess what? Science & academia MADE THE REAL WORLD FOR YOU TO GET A JOB IN.
      Bottom feeder.

      • +1

        Science≠academia

        • Professor of [insert scientific field here] works at [insert University name here]

          • @Boogerman: Haha I'm not sure if you are actually serious or not now?

            • @brendanm: Of course he is serious, and what he has said is bang on the money. Where do you think we would be without science (and perhaps to a lesser extent, academia)? Still up in the freakin' trees, that's where! LOL. The peeps who negged Booger's wise words above should re-read his post, and reconsider/retract those negs. He clearly speaks a fundamental truth.

            • @brendanm: You like Donald Trump, so it would take too much effort to explain

              • @Boogerman: You don't understand that all academia is not science. That's pretty funny. Also not sure where I stated I like trump, I thought academics were good at reading?

                • @brendanm: And you don’t understand that scientists work in academia

                  • @Boogerman: I sure do. The majority of academics are not scientists though.

                    • @brendanm: Academia along with private industry funded science is the pinnacle of intellectualism
                      Conservatives hate it because it exposes their own relative idiocy, so rather than self reflect, they try to tear it down - cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug!

                      • @Boogerman: Academia is not the pinnacle of anything. Some parts are very worthwhile, others are just a pointless wankfest. You sure do have a very high opinion of yourself don't you, must have a liberal arts degree.

                        • @brendanm: “have a very high opinion of yourself”
                          That’s how conservatives view themselves - “I have a mouth & can speak, just like that person with the PhD has a mouth & can speak. See everyone, I’m just as intelligent”…

                          • @Boogerman: Wow, that's the adult equivalent of "I know you are you said you are so what am I". Truly the pinnacle of intellectualism. Enjoy your arts degree.

                            • +1

                              @brendanm: Too funny. The overwhelming majority of people who hold PhDs in scientific fields (eg: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, etc) vote progressive.
                              But in typical conservative fashion you diminish the intellectual capabilities of others by suggesting progressives only hold their doctorates in the Arts (which is quite an achievement in itself)
                              Enjoy those profoundly enlightening pub chinwags with Bazza the chippy & Wazza the sparky cause, you know, they have a job in the real world & hence street cred

                              • @Boogerman: Funnily enough, it's only you who is saying anything about progressives or conservatives. I haven't mentioned them once. I also only had a go at your intellectual capacity, as your rebuttal was that of an 8 year old child, not people who hold proper degrees.

                                It seems that conservatives live in your head rent free.

                                • @brendanm: Its only Ozbargain, so 8 year old responses on here
                                  9 year old on reddit

    • +2

      ffs why has Ozbargain turned so cringey and hostile lately? This place is becoming worse than Whirlpool…and Whirlpool is literally cancer.

      Berating OP for a perfectly valid observation? Calm your farms guys.

  • +20

    Racial and gender equality in the workplace is ridiculous, but to appease lefties is my guess why they do it.

    • -1

      YAY, the first comment that does not begin with the rather ridiculous 'proviso' "tldr" (surely no comment that begins with 'tldr' can be construed as a genuine response; because they have openly declared that they have not actually read what they are commenting on?!?), and actually indicates that the commenter has read my post and understood it. Surprise surprise. It is bang on the money.

      • +8

        How is seeking racial equality in the workplace ridiculous? Can you elaborate with an example of a policy you object to?

        • -5

          Really, Christoff? Do you seriously not understand this? I will ask you a hypothetical question that may help you to understand it:

          In a country called GOPPA there were two races. One was the 'ZAN', and they constituted 90% of the population. The other was the 'KOR', and they made up the other 10% of the population. A clever guy called 'ozhunter' declared that it would be completely ridiculous and discriminatory (against the ZAN) to put policies in place to skew the actual population demographic in the workplace, such that workplaces contained 50% ZAN employees, and 50% KOR employees.

          Someone called Christoff, though, chimed in with 'How is seeking racial equality in the workplace ridiculous?'

          Do you perhaps now understand the point that ozhunter was making, Christoff?

          • +1

            @GnarlyKnuckles: Nice, I get that.
            But the problem is people will typically pick people that they can relate to (easy to work with) and that will usually be their own kind.
            So maybe sometimes you need to force some of the other in so that they can represent their kind and maybe make a few come to relate to the other.
            In GOPPA I bet that the workforces higher positions are more like %96+ ZAN and 4 the other.
            We've had a much higher percentage of men in high positions in the world than women and I doubt the same percentages would relate to how many men and women are in the world.

            • @PAEz: Yo Peazer-wheezer, my 'GOPPA' analogy/hypothetical was only designed to try and enlighten Christoff about the zany way he/she was evidently wildly over-simplifying the concept of 'racial equality in the workplace'. Nothing more.

              Note that in your comment immediately above, you have (like others before you in this thread) resorted to the tired old observation about current unequal gender representation in 'higher positions' of employment. This is not at all what I am talking about. I will ask again, because the same irrelevant 'scripts' keep being reiterated by respondents here:

              Is it fair that young white heterosexual males are actively severely discriminated against with regard to early career opportunities, promotions, grant proposals, etc., despite the fact that these people (not their parents, grandparents, etc.) have never benefited from any form of 'favouritism' towards them in the past? Again, I say that it is clearly not ethical to do that. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it makes zero sense to punish (or discriminate against) a certain demographic of today's youth, for the sins (or discrimination) perpetrated by previous generations. Yet, this is precisely what has been happening in Australia for decades now, and shows no signs of abating. Frankly, it's an astonishing 'historical double-standard' that will no doubt be recognised as such, in the fulness of time. I just wonder how long it will take.

              • @GnarlyKnuckles: As Ive already stated, yes. As long as its in moderation and the person has equal skills of the person they where chosen over. Having equal representation as one of the factors in the decision is not evil. Also, you keep saying minorities as if thats one group. There are many different minorities. So if a place has 8 white people and 10 minorities then you may not even still have discrimination against white males. 2 of the minorities might be white females, 3 indians, 2 italians, 3 africans and no aboriginies, theres a majority of minorities but no one minority is getting preference over white people. How is that unfair? Maybe your perceptions are guided with a Us vs Them attitude.

                • @PAEz: In order to respond to this meaningfully, I will first need to know the basis upon which you are classifying 'females' as a 'minority' in Australia.

                  • +4

                    @GnarlyKnuckles: Women aren’t a minority in society, but within some organisations, professions or groups they are. e.g. engineers, CEOs.

                    • @morse: morse: I elaborate on this a little more in another comment, but I'd be interested in your comment on this:

                      1. In Australian Universities there are substantially more female medical students than male medical students.

                      2. In Australian Universities there are substantially more female students studying teaching than there are male students studying teaching.

                      Does this mean that males are being discriminated against with regard to entry into these courses?

                      • @GnarlyKnuckles: I don’t know much about teaching but can comment on the medical school example. It’s only slightly higher numbers of women in medical school. For undergraduate programs girls on the whole perform better for school leaving exams and are more likely to get the marks required. Men perform better on part 3 of the GAMSAT for graduate entry. Interviews also make up part of the process for selecting students. Where interviews are used it increases the number of women accepted. I suspect most medical schools do aim to have a 50:50 ratio of male and female students, even when men perform better on the GAMSAT 😮
                        Since you see anything that gives women an advantage as discrimination against men, then probably in knuckleland. I don’t have a problem with this, even as a mother to a boy who I want to have opportunities.

                        Interestingly whilst there are more female doctors, there are a higher proportion of men in medical leadership positions, this is mostly attributed to women taking a break to have kids, and I suspect will even out once the older predominantly male generation of docs retire.

Login or Join to leave a comment