Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by wargunfan, Sep 17, 2013.
Once again, we are not talking about men who have risen to positions of power. We are spotlighting the average Joe who faces discrimination every day in the struggle to advance in their chosen field. They face a climate of political correctness in corporate America just as real as that which prevented women and minorities from advancing in former times.
I have an experience with something along these lines. My first year in law school I was part of the student government and I was assigned to the student seat for the professor hiring council. The council was a 5 member panel with 4 professors and a member of the student government.
That year there were two jobs that came up and we had maybe 10-12 applications. Some of those applications were outstanding in their academic credentials and published work. Both of the candidates that were hired for the positions were voted on unanimously by the 4 faculty members. I voted for one of them and against the other.
The candidates that were hired, ALL of their published material and academic focus was on homosexual rights and advocacy. The faculty positions that they were taking had nothing to do with constitutional law or potential gay rights classes. Those candidates were specifically hired because of their sexual orientation.
One of the two candidates had an excellent academic record and was one of the better qualified candidates. The other......let's just say if it wasn't for the hiring agenda, that individual wouldn't even have made it to the discussion room.
Let's get ready to RUMBLE!!!! In this corner, we have Wargunfan:
In the opposite corner, we have...um...Wargunfan:
To whose favor is it to say that white guys make better insurance salesmen? So the minorities washed out or were scooped up into the management positions you kept turning down. I bet you knew some other white guys turning down management positions, too. But, hey, some guys like the 9-to-5 with no extra added hassles like management, I mean why else turn down the corner office, the power, the prestige?
Oh, yeah, well there is that. Gosh, it must have been hell for you to be able to turn down all those "promotions" and then watch the females and minorities get re-assigned to lower paying jobs. How were you able to suffer through such inequity? :roll:
By earning over a quarter of a million dollars annually. That softened the blow quite a bit. :joecool:
Buy a Honda and you won't have the "service" problem.:laugh:
Jeez that actually surprisingly like the popular TV program list of 2012 that I posted above, minus the American Idol stuff. There are a couple of popular family shows, like Modern Family, but most of the highest ratedr shows of today, like NCIS, Walking Dead, CSI, seem to eschew family dynamics as well.
Maybe the differences aren't as big as we thought?
There were certainly family shows: Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, Donna Reed, Ozzie and Harriet ...
But the networks also went way out of their way to keep relationships to a minimum. Not only did Ben Cartwright's three wives each die after producing a son, if any of the sons became attracted to a woman, you could be sure she'd die by the end of the show.
Look at the 1960s: Beverly Hillbillies, Andy Griffith ... wives have all died. Man from Uncle, Wild Wild West ... just a couple of single guys. All the detective shows ...
Geez ... I guess they were the good ole days. :laugh:
I try not to watch too much tv, so this is probably anecdotal, but I my wife and I have both noticed what seems to be the "white male buffoon" character becoming prevalent in commercials. It may just be the particular shows or stations we watch, but figured I'd chime in on the op.
Like I said, commercials is where I notice it, too.
Indeed. And certainly we still have popular family shows: Modern Family, 2.5 men (though wifeless family), Breaking Bad??, Downton Abbey I guess, Family Guy, but most of the highest rated shows seem to be this detective stuff.
Yes, one wonders how all those white men were able to overcome the long odds against them and arise to dominate positions of prestige and power in nearly every field.
Damn. Going through thousands of TV commercials is a bit above my pay grade, so I'm going to have to leave this one as a cold case, coincidentally one of the rare detective shows without a male lead.
Is this really a new archetype though? I mean, didnt Charlie Chaplin do a bumbling white male, before TV and sound in movies? And I'm assuming he was just picking up on vaudeville tropes too. I mean, if you want to go back far enough (Shakespeare's time, or minstril era), even women and black men were played by white men, they had to cover all the roles.
Anyone who watches television cannot deny the prevalence of "white male baffoons" on both television shows and commercials.
But who the hell cares? Why is this worth getting worked up over?
There are much more legitimate forms of real discrimination against white males that should be called out -- mostly revolving around Affirmative Action.
I just see how Al and Jesse hurt their cause among whites. They're so freakin' quick to claim discrimination, even when it's trivial, incidental, or unprovable, that society tends to ignore them when blacks face real discrimination.
And you know, they are the very ones who are establishing the policies which move women and minorities to the head of the line. I have had conversations with some of them and they will tell you that they are under pressure from advocacy groups to compensate for historical discrimination. Of course the glass ceiling should be removed. Of course Black men who deserve promotions should get them. The workplace should be a meritocracy. I'm saying that White males have been the victims of overcompensation in this area. And I am only one of many.
I think you'd have a better argument if AA had subverted what was previously a merit driven promotion system. Companies have rarely ever used "merit" only as a system of advancement.
Merit should be right up there with ability and experience; not gender or race. The situation was once reversed. If you were a White male you went to the head of the line. This was and is wrong. The current trend of moving women and minorities to the head of the line is just as wrong. The difference is that White males don't have the equivalent of NOW and the NAACP to advocate for them. There are White males in just about any large corporation who have been passed over in order to advance a woman or a minority.
First of all, I think your argument that white people went to the "head of the line" simply because of their race in the past is a little flawed, and overlooks a number of things (most specifically, gender). Second, as far as some white men getting "passed over" as the result of AA policies I guess the obvious response is: so what? If companies value diversity, among other things, not limited to experience or "merit," isnt it their perogative to do so? Moreover, AA makes a convenient scapegoat when you don't get the job, so I'm not sure how many people are actually the "victim" only of AA. The workplace rarely functions as a meritocracy, as almost anyone whe has ever worked for a major employer can attest.