Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2009, 10:05 AM
 
886 posts, read 2,212,984 times
Reputation: 325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabularasa View Post
"reverse" racism and "reverse" discrimination don't exist...both are misnomers. There is only racism and discrimination. Neither is tied to any one particular race or ethnicity or any other individual group...anybody can be discriminated against due to race (or a multitude of other factors). Doesn't make it "reverse."
this
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2009, 08:08 PM
 
270 posts, read 652,980 times
Reputation: 155
Versatile,

I wasn't even aware there was a Secion 8 business program. Is that becoming a provider of housing for low income residents or a grant to start a business or ? And what was your experience with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Middle America
37,409 posts, read 53,273,112 times
Reputation: 53066
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
Announcement at work yesterday--six new people promoted to management.

Five are girls, all less than 30 years old. One was part-time. Only one male in the bunch, also under 30. I'm sure he's their token to "prove" they don't discriminate.
So the women under 30 are "girls," while the "boy" under 30 is a "male." Seems like we all have our biases.

I wonder how many people were up for the promotions to management, and what the gender spread of the applicants was, what their individual qualifications were. That would be more pertinent, most likely, than the fact that they're predominantly "girls under 30."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2009, 10:23 PM
 
822 posts, read 2,035,154 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
So the women under 30 are "girls," while the "boy" under 30 is a "male." Seems like we all have our biases.

I wonder how many people were up for the promotions to management, and what the gender spread of the applicants was, what their individual qualifications were. That would be more pertinent, most likely, than the fact that they're predominantly "girls under 30."
I can help you with that: Over 150 people applied, MANY with equal or better education and more than 20 years experience.

My choice of the word "girl" may have offended you but no offense was intended. It's just the way I talk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2009, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Middle America
37,409 posts, read 53,273,112 times
Reputation: 53066
It didn't offend me, it just struck me as noteworthy given the discussion, so I pointed it out. If somebody wants to refer to me as a "girl," and a guy my age as a "man," whatever, no skin off my butt. But it's definitely noteworthy. As is the assumption that being younger necessarily makes one less qualified than someone older, in and of itself. There are a whole lot of windows for discrimination. When you're basing somebody's value as an employee on details like how old they are or their gender versus proven job performance and the like, you're walking a dangerous path.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 12:17 AM
 
822 posts, read 2,035,154 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
It didn't offend me, it just struck me as noteworthy given the discussion, so I pointed it out. If somebody wants to refer to me as a "girl," and a guy my age as a "man," whatever, no skin off my butt. But it's definitely noteworthy. As is the assumption that being younger necessarily makes one less qualified than someone older, in and of itself. There are a whole lot of windows for discrimination. When you're basing somebody's value as an employee on details like how old they are or their gender versus proven job performance and the like, you're walking a dangerous path.
What's "noteworthy" mean? If the use of the word "girl" is such a big deal, replace it with "female" or "woman" or "non-male", whatever it takes to get you over that obstacle. I could care less what word is used. FWIW, I referred to him as "male", not a "man"; I don't consider him any more qualified than the others.

You're talking in generalities, that from your perspective without any personal knowledge of this situation, might make sense. I'm a whole lot closer to the situation than you and I'm talking in specifics. These people ARE less qualified. FAR less qualified. As in never having any project responsibilities. There are whole salary grades that are being skipped to promote these people. The salary bands are generally representative of experience and responsibility levels. So when you skip from a two to a four, you never performed as or gained the experience of, a level three, which was intended to be the natural order of career progression. It's like skipping your junior level of high school--going straight from sophomore to senior. A few exceptional people can do it--but six out of six? I don't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 12:48 AM
 
1,662 posts, read 4,476,952 times
Reputation: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
A few exceptional people can do it--but six out of six? I don't think so.
My first guess would be that they were probably willing to take the positions for less pay than their level 3 counterparts. It's also possible that they showed more initiative as opposed to some who may have thought that promotion was a "given".

And since I'm posting, I also "noted" your use of the word "girl" as opposed to "women". Yes, you used the word "male" as opposed to "man", but do you typically refer to 25-year old male coworkers as "boys"? It may not matter to you which word you use, but if you want a promotion, you would do well not to alienate roughly half of the workforce by referring to them in a way that they consider demeaning. Regardless of the line of work you are in, if you care at all about the people with whom you work, you should make the small effort to change the habit of referring to anyone over the age of 11 as a "girl". "Young lady" or "young woman" rolls off the tongue just as easily for those over 12 and provides insurance against offending a 20-something who looks young for her age. Feel free to drop the "young" adjective at any point over 20.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Middle America
37,409 posts, read 53,273,112 times
Reputation: 53066
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
What's "noteworthy" mean?
That your choice of language, specifically using a childlike descriptor, seems to imply a perceived maturity difference and potentially ability difference between males and females of the same basic age, which fits in well with the topic at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:00 AM
 
822 posts, read 2,035,154 times
Reputation: 401
Thanks for that good advice. I'll try to follow it. Really, I will.

Now for the 'accept the job at lower pay' issue....nope, it can't be done. The managers' pay grade has a bottom limit that is far above the top of the pay grades these young men and women were in. Depending upon where they are in their bracket now, they'll be getting $20K to $40K raises.

And, nobody can take promotion as a given. You have to apply for a promotion. Unless you make the effort to apply, you will NEVER be promoted--that's just the policy. I don't agree with it but that's the way it is. But of course, there is the good old boy (Care if I use the word 'boy' there? If not, why?) network in place where chosen people are 'encouraged' to apply.

Last edited by cp1969; 11-21-2009 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2009, 09:14 AM
 
822 posts, read 2,035,154 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
That your choice of language, specifically using a childlike descriptor, seems to imply a perceived maturity difference and potentially ability difference between males and females of the same basic age, which fits in well with the topic at hand.
For the record: I NEVER said or implied that there is or was a potential ability difference between males and females of the same basic age. You are attributing something to me that does NOT exist and it would be really nice if you would either go back and find where I said that or stop claiming that I did.

It was meant to imply a maturity difference, because such a maturity difference between those promoted and many of the experienced people who applied is strikingly obvious. Again, you are trying to justify something that you really know nothing about. You're talking about hypothetical cases; I'm not. I'm talking about an actual case where I know and have worked with many, if not most, of the people involved. The OP started this thread for cases of actual discrimination in KC; I provided one.

I also don't know how you can recognize a 'potential ability difference' until someone has demonstrated an ability accomplished something, such as leading a project?

Last edited by cp1969; 11-21-2009 at 09:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top