Because he wanted to fill the pool of candidates before he picked them. He didn't reject men and then go looking for women, he said that men had a far larger number of applicants than women. So he asked for more to be considered. Is that how it happened, IDK, but that is how it should and how he said it did. Your implication that the women he chose to fill positions were inferior to their male counterparts is degrading to the women who were hired. Unless you have facts that say male candidate x was better suited for the position than female candidate w. Then I can agree he hired them for the wrong reason.
Binders-deal or no deal
- Thread starter Ziggy
- Start date
He never said he rejected the men, he said he wanted more "women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet." And you implied that he rejected a group of men and pushed on women for certain positions, meaning they were hired only because they were women.
carlfense
New member
Romney's words:
Cliff notes:
1. Romney's people assembled a pool of qualified all-male applicants.
2. Instead of selecting solely from the qualified men Romney (commendably, I might add) said that he wanted to find qualified women.
What?! Where on earth did I imply that the women were inferior to their male counterparts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Affirmative action is hiring people based solely on minority status. Saying women were picked because they were women and not better candidates is affirmative action.
Carl your cliff notes are misleading a bit. You keep assuming the pool of people for positions wasn't just a list of people who applied for the jobs. So he saw the list of people noticed lots of men and few women, and told his people to find more female candidates for the jobs. Then they went through the lists and picked the people who filled the positions based on merits not on gender. In a perfect world, the peoples names and gender would never be on the application that is being considered.
You imply that the women who were picked for the jobs were picked because they were women, not because they were the best person for the job. If they are not the best person for the job they are then inferior to the person who should have gotten the job, male or female. You implied men were not looked at but tossed aside to look at women first.
Carl your cliff notes are misleading a bit. You keep assuming the pool of people for positions wasn't just a list of people who applied for the jobs. So he saw the list of people noticed lots of men and few women, and told his people to find more female candidates for the jobs. Then they went through the lists and picked the people who filled the positions based on merits not on gender. In a perfect world, the peoples names and gender would never be on the application that is being considered.
You imply that the women who were picked for the jobs were picked because they were women, not because they were the best person for the job. If they are not the best person for the job they are then inferior to the person who should have gotten the job, male or female. You implied men were not looked at but tossed aside to look at women first.
sd'sker
Banned
i did not read the rest of your post because i had to respond to this: that is absolutely not what affirmative action is.
knapplc
Active member
tschu
Banned
Haha, i wasn't even gonna make that post because I knew it wouldn't be believable. Related story, the internet is fantastic.tschu is an old man.
I shouldn't not have used solely, my mistake. The idea is correct, that the most qualified candidate may not always get the job.
"Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business",[2] usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
"Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business",[2] usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
knapplc
Active member
Affirmative Action is typically found in government hiring. But Affirmative Action flies in the face of Title VII, which states:
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; ..."
Not hiring a male and, instead, hiring a female, even though they are equally qualified, solely because of their respective genders, is illegal. But that is at the very heart of Affirmative Action.
It's a Left Hand/Right Hand thing.
They are not required to be inferior, but sometimes the most qualified person is not given the job because of non job related information is taken into account. Second best, can still be amazing person, but they are inferior to the person above them. Picking the best person regardless of race or gender is not affirmative action. Your implying he never gave men a chance to compete against women, is the same as implying that those women were hired because of their gender not because they were the most qualified to do the job.