You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Positive Discrimination
What are folks views on ‘Positive Discrimination ‘?
Personally, I feel the two words don’t quite go together, I mean...what can be positive about any discrimination..
I see this used more and more, in the workplace for instance where a certain gender, or indeed race is “ Under represented ‘ so the powers that be target the ‘Under represented’ to fill the role.
I see and hear about this in politics also, now for me that is skating on thin ice, there’s been an outcry that more women, more ethnic minorities ( In certain constituencies) need to be representing the people, now I don’t wish to get into the debate ( at this point) about why there’s more White,middle class males in power, but surely it should be the best PERSON fits the bill.
I see Donna has highlighted the fact Women should be targeted to play poker, on the one hand that’s ok , but let’s just think about the reason why Women in general are less likely to play poker than men.
It’s a fact of life that men ( Certainly in my surroundings) are more likely to be “The gambler” in the family, be it backing horses, playing cards, etc etc,
I hold my hands up to being old fashioned, and tbh I don’t see anything wrong with that.
To say “ Men Only” allowed , there would be an absolute outcry of “Sexist”, how has it become ok for “Women only”, “Ethnic Minorities only”
Tin Hat ready 😊
Personally, I feel the two words don’t quite go together, I mean...what can be positive about any discrimination..
I see this used more and more, in the workplace for instance where a certain gender, or indeed race is “ Under represented ‘ so the powers that be target the ‘Under represented’ to fill the role.
I see and hear about this in politics also, now for me that is skating on thin ice, there’s been an outcry that more women, more ethnic minorities ( In certain constituencies) need to be representing the people, now I don’t wish to get into the debate ( at this point) about why there’s more White,middle class males in power, but surely it should be the best PERSON fits the bill.
I see Donna has highlighted the fact Women should be targeted to play poker, on the one hand that’s ok , but let’s just think about the reason why Women in general are less likely to play poker than men.
It’s a fact of life that men ( Certainly in my surroundings) are more likely to be “The gambler” in the family, be it backing horses, playing cards, etc etc,
I hold my hands up to being old fashioned, and tbh I don’t see anything wrong with that.
To say “ Men Only” allowed , there would be an absolute outcry of “Sexist”, how has it become ok for “Women only”, “Ethnic Minorities only”
Tin Hat ready 😊
Comments
In principle, I detest "positive discrimination" as it is, in itself, discriminatory. In practice, it is not so easy. Let's take MP selection committees as an example-they often consist entirely of white, middle class males. They (unsurprisingly) tend to choose people who fit their mould, so something has to be done to break that cycle.
Similarly, plenty of studies have shown that people with "English" names get way more interviews than identically qualified people who have "foreign"-sounding names. Unconscious racism can have devastating effects.
In short, there needs to be a level playing field. For that to happen, there needs to be positive discrimination, at least in the short term.
Generally though, I agree with OP. Just pick the best X people for Y job. If they happen to be all white men, then so be it. If they happen to be all black women, then so be it. If there's a problem with people not getting equal opportunity then that needs to be addressed way before positive discrimination comes in to try and balance things out.
I know loads of schools are trying to encourage more girls to go into Maths and Science nowadays, and that's the way to address any imbalances that exist, rather than expecting companies looking for people with those skills to hire more people from different backgrounds just because quotas.
I'm probably going to be the beneficiary of positive discrimination soon - One of the Universities I applied for this year sent me a letter saying that in certain circumstances they would reduce the offer made to me by a couple of grades. I satisfy those criteria (Low income background, below average grades in my area, cr*p school, no parents went to University, dropped out of College previously etc), so whereas most people are going to require maybe AAA or AAB to get onto that particular degree course, I'll probably get a reduced offer of like ACC to get onto the same degree course. I plan on making the most of any opportunity, but it hardly seems fair on everyone else. I'm also not sure how I'd feel if I do only get into University because of having a lower offer than everybody else, and having that label of "Not being there on merit".
I do understand why it's there with Apartheid being fairly recent, but picking players to represent a country should be totally meritocratic.
For any Cricket fans in the thread, Jacques Rudolph famously was supposed to make his test debut in 2002 then didn't because South Africa picked Justin Ontong to satisfy their quota instead. Justin Ontong never made a fifty in any format of international cricket as a specialist 'batsman' (allegedly) who kinda bowled a bit. Jacques Rudolph later ditched South Africa to play first class cricket in England as a Kolpak player and attempt to qualify for England selection through residency. Played for Yorkshire for a while. Quality player.
It's also the reason that Kevin Pietersen has repeatedly cited for leaving South Africa to come to England, as he couldn't get into his domestic team's starting XI on a regular basis as they had to pick players to satisfy a quota.
Fortunately nobody talks about the quota at the moment because South Africa have Hashim Amla and three very good bowlers in Vernon Philander, Keshav Maharaj, and Kagiso Rabada who could get into any cricket team in the world and also satisfy the quota.
The arguments for quotas in sport include things like "Young black people need black players to be role models", which I don't think is completely true. There's plenty of young black kids that want to be Ronaldo or Messi, there's plenty of young white kids that want to be Neymar or Paul Pogba, and there's definitely a ton of young white South African cricketers that want to bat like Hashim Amla when they're older.
Kids aren't born racist - IMO black children only need black role models if we teach people that skin colour matters in the first place.
The Rooney Rule in American sports is stupid at times as well. By rule, teams have to interview one minority candidate for coaching jobs. Which is great in theory, except it leads to these ridiculous situations where you've clearly got one guy lined up as your next head coach, and you have to do a token interview that's never going to amount to anything more than a box-ticking exercise. This exact situation happened with my NFL team at the end of the season, and there was a whole thing about whether they complied with the Rooney Rule or not. When we had zero intention of ever hiring anybody else, it hardly matters whether or not we do an interview with a guy who is never getting the job.
Imagine how ridiculous it would have been if nobody at Manchester United could talk about David Moyes being the next manager after Sir Alex. Not only that, but they have to interview someone like Paul Ince to not get into trouble with the league.
I despise the quota system, which was, or is, prevalent in UK politics.
x% of Constituency Candidates must be female, or black, or whatever.
That's just so wrong.
The role, or job, should go to the best person for the job. If they all happen to be white, or black, male or female, so be it.
The Thug referred to Donna's post about encouraging more women to play poker, & I could not agree more.
However......"Women Only" Tournaments is absolutely NOT the answer, imo.
There be a right hoohah if, say, the Sunday Major or Tuesday Main Event were made MALE ONLY, & quite right too. There's a bit of cake & eat it here, we can't have it both ways.
We should all do our best to behave in a manner which encourages more women (or younger/older people) to play poker. "Women Only" MTT's is not the answer though.
Not really related to discrimination, but without exception, every Online Female Only MTT has been plagued by multi-accounting - the boyfriend/Dad/Brother/Son or whoever "takes over" the Account for that MTT. It happens every time.
I'm not even sure the GC would be pleased to see a UK based Online Poker Site offer female only (or male only) events. Other sites can do it, as they are domiciled in weird overseas territories where sex-discrimination laws do not apply, or cannot be enforced. I'm not sure Sky Poker would be permitted to do so though, the great Gods of Compliance would not allow it.
Let's take the "land of the free" as an example.
Total number of Presidents-43
Millionaires at time took office-43
Male-43
White-42
Protestant-41
Either "the best person for the job" is always a male millionaire, and almost always a WASP, or the system is just plain wrong.
In this country, more PMs have been to Eton than every single state school added together-anyone believe that Eton is better than the combined brains of every state school (including the old Grammars)?
PS-someone from a disadvantaged background getting ACC is likely to be way brighter than a typical AAB from a Private school. This is due to many factors, including teaching, pupil ratios, parental support, peer pressure etc.
Let's not forget, when a woman has the ability - really has the ability - she will succeed.
The best Prime Minister of our lifetime was exactly that - head & shoulders above all her contemporaries. She never succeeded because she was female, she succeeded because she was the best at running our country.
"Grading is based on past performance, but admissions should be based on potential, on how a candidate may thrive with this sort of opportunity, and studies show that affirmative action admits have a higher predisposition to contribute to society"
It's only bit of fun don't shot the messenger.
He was interviewed and asked to give an explanation as to why he had never employed a member of staff who wasn’t white.
He had a pretty good reason. He had never received an application from anyone who wasn’t white.