Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Asperger Syndrome and affirmative action

Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

17 Jan 2011, 1:07 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It might seem meaningless but it isn't to the individual who was denied a job because of her skin color. Welcome to reality, though. Discrimination does happen, even to members of the majority. Someone, somewhere, is going to be denied a job for a superficial reason, like shade of skin tone. Qualifications, alone, rarely get someone hired (though they can help) Affirmative action is the only way minorities who are discriminated against because of race can get ahead.


I applied to dozens and dozens of jobs from 1998 until 2004. Hired? None. The only jobs I have ever managed to get with an interview are fast food. All other jobs? I didn't have an interview first. Feedback I got? The one time I got feedback, it was "She seemed strange/off." Whatever that means. I have to assume there was something about me that put people off, even though I thought I was interviewing well, there was something I was missing. Who knows? I certainly felt discriminated against, and I know from my friends around the same time that they thought I could be strange, intimidating, cold, angry, and "too much" when my mood in those conversations wasn't anything like that, you know?

What I meant by meaningless is one anecdote interpreted by a guy who feels that a woman of color got a job unfairly strikes me as pretty biased. Statistical analysis is needed.

Quote:
If people would just hire them anyway, affirmative action wouldn't be needed but people tend to discriminate. It's inherent in human nature, so you need the AAP. If it is discrimination, so what? At least it's allowing someone to get ahead. Someone would be getting ahead anyway, no matter what.
Until you show me the perfect society,affirmative action will be necessary, just like it's necessary for people to discriminate against minorities in the first place.

I don't blame minorities for protecting their own interests.


Agreed. I was disagreeing with the other poster, who felt it was unfair a woman of color got work via affirmative action. But if she was qualified, I don't understand the complaint.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Jan 2011, 8:00 am

Verdandi wrote:
Agreed. I was disagreeing with the other poster, who felt it was unfair a woman of color got work via affirmative action. But if she was qualified, I don't understand the complaint.

Women have made leaps and bounds in getting hired and promoted because of affirmative action, so he might have a point. A woman could very well be picked for a promotion over an equally qualified man because of gender alone.
Not that I am complaining.
Women make up half the population, they should make up half the workforce as well, so it's only fair.
Still, women lag behind in the amount of money they are paid for the same work, which is more of an incentive to hire women. If you have a company and you realize you can get by with hiring more workers because you know you will be paying them less, it's a motivation to hire the type of workers you don't have to pay as much. That way your profit margin increases and you have more people working for less money.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

17 Jan 2011, 9:26 am

AA should apply to anyone who is a member of a discriminated group, but in reality it only works for certain favored group of "victims."

It's a dysfunctional and outdated policy that should be scrapped.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Jan 2011, 9:34 am

zer0netgain wrote:
AA should apply to anyone who is a member of a discriminated group, but in reality it only works for certain favored group of "victims."

It's a dysfunctional and outdated policy that should be scrapped.

If you have a workforce that is fifty percent men, fifty percent women with minorities hired and promoted at a rate you can compare with their numbers in society, how can you say a company like that needs affirmative action? It's the companies that aren't like this that need it.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

17 Jan 2011, 2:11 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Women have made leaps and bounds in getting hired and promoted because of affirmative action, so he might have a point. A woman could very well be picked for a promotion over an equally qualified man because of gender alone.
Not that I am complaining.


I think it is likely that the "equally qualified man" will certainly interpret it that way, but how could he know? There could be other factors in play. I think people are inclined to assign external factors to everything that negatively affects them, and many of the complaints about affirmative action seem to fall into that category.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,949
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Jan 2011, 2:21 pm

Ariela wrote:
Do you think Aspies could be considered as candidates for affirmative action?


I would not agree with that for a couple of reasons:
1. I do not like anything about the idea of affirmative action, I mean someone should be accepted to college based on if they qualify not their race, gender or anything else. This is not to say I think people who struggle with things should not get into college but they should not get first priority over people who have more qualificiations.

2. I don't see what good it would do, I mean if affirmative action was applied to aspergers then I would feel even more crappy if I don't do well because of the knowledge someone was probably denied something they deserved so I could fail at it.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

17 Jan 2011, 2:28 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Ariela wrote:
Do you think Aspies could be considered as candidates for affirmative action?


I would not agree with that for a couple of reasons:
1. I do not like anything about the idea of affirmative action, I mean someone should be accepted to college based on if they qualify not their race, gender or anything else. This is not to say I think people who struggle with things should not get into college but they should not get first priority over people who have more qualificiations.

2. I don't see what good it would do, I mean if affirmative action was applied to aspergers then I would feel even more crappy if I don't do well because of the knowledge someone was probably denied something they deserved so I could fail at it.


These aren't logical. The point of affirmative action isn't to change the necessary qualifications to get work, it is to give qualified members of minorities a better shot at getting work.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,949
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Jan 2011, 2:31 pm

Verdandi wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ariela wrote:
Do you think Aspies could be considered as candidates for affirmative action?


I would not agree with that for a couple of reasons:
1. I do not like anything about the idea of affirmative action, I mean someone should be accepted to college based on if they qualify not their race, gender or anything else. This is not to say I think people who struggle with things should not get into college but they should not get first priority over people who have more qualificiations.

2. I don't see what good it would do, I mean if affirmative action was applied to aspergers then I would feel even more crappy if I don't do well because of the knowledge someone was probably denied something they deserved so I could fail at it.


These aren't logical. The point of affirmative action isn't to change the necessary qualifications to get work, it is to give qualified members of minorities a better shot at getting work.


Well I realse that is the basic idea, but it seems like it usually gets used like reverse discrimination a lot.



theexternvoid
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 208

17 Jan 2011, 3:33 pm

To literally answer your question "could be considered"... Depends on what "could" means.

Answer 1: No. At least in America, I don't think that there is any law in any state that explicitly enumerates aspies as a having special rights above others.

Answer 2: Yes. Although not currently, a state legislature "could" pass such a law, and the federal government "could" pass such a law with regards to employment linked to interstate commerce or internal employment rules for federal agencies.

Answer 3: If you meant "should be considered" then the answer is no because such laws are evil no matter who benefits.


There are two types of affirmative action:

1) Free handouts and quotas to special privileged groups. This is obviously bad because it goes against the idea of meritocracy.

2) Giving certain special privileged groups a better shot at getting the job while keeping qualifications the same. For example, listing a job in Monster.com and then also listing the job in some specialize job site, like (I'm making this up) WomenLeadershipJobBoard.com.

In order for #2 to be fair one must believe that there is something intrinsically unfair about listing a job on Monster.com alone, that it some how gives (in this case) women a disadvantage in finding said job. One way that could be true is if Monster.com has engaged in a conspiracy against female job applicants, which is both illegal and makes no financial sense since reduces the value of their service to the companies that pay for the ads. The only other potential explanation for the unfairness is that women somehow aren't able to figure out how to find a job on Monster.com, which is obviously absurd.

Thus there is no logical argument for #2 other than a backdoor way to achieve free handouts and quotas to special privileged groups (#1).



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911

17 Jan 2011, 5:19 pm

theexternvoid wrote:
To literally answer your question "could be considered"... Depends on what "could" means.

Answer 1: No. At least in America, I don't think that there is any law in any state that explicitly enumerates aspies as a having special rights above others.

Answer 2: Yes. Although not currently, a state legislature "could" pass such a law, and the federal government "could" pass such a law with regards to employment linked to interstate commerce or internal employment rules for federal agencies.

Answer 3: If you meant "should be considered" then the answer is no because such laws are evil no matter who benefits.


There are two types of affirmative action:

1) Free handouts and quotas to special privileged groups. This is obviously bad because it goes against the idea of meritocracy.

2) Giving certain special privileged groups a better shot at getting the job while keeping qualifications the same. For example, listing a job in Monster.com and then also listing the job in some specialize job site, like (I'm making this up) WomenLeadershipJobBoard.com.

In order for #2 to be fair one must believe that there is something intrinsically unfair about listing a job on Monster.com alone, that it some how gives (in this case) women a disadvantage in finding said job. One way that could be true is if Monster.com has engaged in a conspiracy against female job applicants, which is both illegal and makes no financial sense since reduces the value of their service to the companies that pay for the ads. The only other potential explanation for the unfairness is that women somehow aren't able to figure out how to find a job on Monster.com, which is obviously absurd.

Thus there is no logical argument for #2 other than a backdoor way to achieve free handouts and quotas to special privileged groups (#1).


Without any value judgements on Affirmative Action and per the Op's original question of could people with Aspergers be considered for Affirmative action:

There is no law of that I know of that explicitly states that people with Aspergers have special rights. But they can meet the Qualifications to be covered under the American's with
Disabilities Act of 1990 if they have a Medical Diagnosis. The act doesn't list all of the disabilities that are eligible, it defines disability, and ASD's meet the requirements of the definition.

The ADA requirements for disability match the definition of disability to be qualified under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to be covered under affirmative action plans for Federal contract jobs over $10,000, so a person with a Medical Diagnosis of Aspergers can qualify for this type of affirmative action plan; it does not include quotas.

Here is a link to the law that applies to government contractor affirmative action for people with disabilities (including ASD's per included definition of disability):

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.11&idno=41



Ariela
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 225

17 Jan 2011, 7:27 pm

Ana
I am not so particular as to what percentage of the workforce women make up, but women are usually judged by their appearance rather than their qualifications. I understand that there are some careers in which a women's appearance is essential to her performance such as public relations and healthy weight and good hygiene are important in every field but I would like women to be judged by their qualifications not their appearance.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Jan 2011, 7:55 pm

Ariela wrote:
Ana
I am not so particular as to what percentage of the workforce women make up, but women are usually judged by their appearance rather than their qualifications. I understand that there are some careers in which a women's appearance is essential to her performance such as public relations and healthy weight and good hygiene are important in every field but I would like women to be judged by their qualifications not their appearance.

That would be ideal, but reality is far from it. So, why not have the workforce reflect society? This way there's some attractive and not so attractive people working in one place.



Ariela
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 225

17 Jan 2011, 8:07 pm

Ana
They already have an anti discrimination society against the discrimination of short people as short men are often discriminated for something they cannot help. Why can't we not promote the empowerment and equality of less attractive women?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Jan 2011, 8:17 pm

Because a lot of it is subjective and people have different ideas of what beauty is. I heard just today, on the news, Ok Kupid's less attractive women are actually more popular than the better looking ones. If there is some debate about the woman being attract, she gets more attention on OkCupid, according to the site which seems to contradict the idea that ugliness equals unpopular (though the adjective ugly was not used in the news story).
How do you prove someone didn't get hired because of their lack of attraction when the ones doing the hiring can always lie and say "oh, she looks fine, we just already filled the position," or something like that. It's very hard to prove discrimination based on lack of physical attractiveness.
Hygiene is in a different catagory because most people have control over that, to some extent. They can always shower before the interview.



Ariela
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 225

17 Jan 2011, 8:23 pm

If women were to represent 51% of the workplace (we make up roughly 51% of the population as males die younger), I would like the workplace to represent somewhat of a microcosm of American women. I would not like to see 95% of these positions go to attractive women who may or may not be qualified for their position. I do not support affirmative action and am not particular about what percentage each group makes up (so long as it is close to what percentage of the population they actually are) but I think we should work on putting anti discrimination laws into place for unattractive women and abnormally short men as well as minorities.



2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,248

17 Jan 2011, 8:33 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Because a lot of it is subjective and people have different ideas of what beauty is. I heard just today, on the news, Ok Kupid's less attractive women are actually more popular than the better looking ones. If there is some debate about the woman being attract, she gets more attention on OkCupid, according to the site which seems to contradict the idea that ugliness equals unpopular (though the adjective ugly was not used in the news story).
How do you prove someone didn't get hired because of their lack of attraction when the ones doing the hiring can always lie and say "oh, she looks fine, we just already filled the position," or something like that. It's very hard to prove discrimination based on lack of physical attractiveness.
Hygiene is in a different catagory because most people have control over that, to some extent. They can always shower before the interview.


Beauty actually IS in the eyes of the beholder. But a guy actually won an award for coming up with a theory that you have better luck going after the less attractive woman. She may be perceived as and may actually be desparate, and fewer men will be thought to approach her.

After all, all the women I have met that I really liked were ALREADY married.