Society/Culture Are we turning a blind eye to indigenous problems?

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The company I work for has a publicly stated aim of have a 50 / 50, male / female workforce by 2020.

Their holy trinity as far as recruitment purposes go are :

Female Aboriginal (know as a unicorn amongst HR staff)

Females / Aboriginal men (almost level pegging)

We have found out in the last few weeks what it would take for the company to sack one of the holy trinity.

Repeated sexual harassment of members from one of the other sub-groups within the holy trinity.

It was actually interesting to see where the line would be drawn.

 

[kickazz]

Guys my dad is around so I have look like I am a hard worker, Have a good afternoon guys.

Maybe your dad should have hired a hard working Asian

 

[Proud SJW]

We dont pay Newstart allowance based on race.

There are plenty of separated benefits based on ethnicity, so don't cherry pick.

Basically, if you're in support of the idea that race is a social construct, and that individuals should be assigned benefits or assessed for jobs or housing etc based entirely upon merit, then effectively you should be voting for Pauline Hanson.
Back in the day, that's more or less precisely the type of policy she was advocating.

You were probably too busy trying to balance on your rather shoddily constructed soapbox to notice.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

Maybe your dad should have hired a hard working Asian

Not as easy these days. Asians are over represented in the workforce. They have to be 20% more productive/intelligent than the next minority candidate to even get a look in.

It's like a reverse natural selection deal.

Darwin would be rolling in his grave.

 

[Frank Bunn]

And the courts have been equally clear that the element of 'descent' does not need to be biological. In some cases it does not need to exist at all.

It's not clear at all.

Brennan J in his leading judgment in Mabo v Queensland (No 2), in relation to native title.

Membership of the Indigenous people depends on biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person’s membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.[20]​

The cases you cite both stated a requirement for biological descent but recognise the practical difficulties for some of proving that.

36.24 Drummond J commented that Deane J’s three-part test should not be regarded as containing an exhaustive description of the meaning in ordinary
speech of the term ‘Aboriginal’. His Honour held that a person must have some degree of Aboriginal descent to satisfy the definition of an ‘Aboriginal person’. A small degree of Aboriginal descent coupled with genuine self-identification or with communal recognition may be sufficient for eligibility; alternatively, a substantial degree of descent may by itself be sufficient.[28] Drummond J recognised the probative value of communal recognition as evidence of Aboriginal descent.

36.25 In Shaw v Wolf, the Federal Court again considered the meaning of an ‘Aboriginal person’ for the purposes of the ATSIC Act. Merkel J held that if
a person has no Aboriginal descent then he or she cannot be an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the Act. However, evidence about the process by which self-identification and communal identification occurs can be probative of descent.[30] Merkel J referred to the lack of documentary records and to the reticence of some families of Aboriginal descent to publicly acknowledge that fact due to actual or perceived racism from the rest of the community.​

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-aboriginality

 

[FireKrakouer]

You literally can't go a post without contradicting yourself. Congrats on being the worlds best jump rope player.

I certainly don't agree with all his posts, but there was no contradiction there. Big companies are profit driven, pure and simple. Read an investment prospectus from a mining company, they basically say "yes we go around raping and pillaging the land, but this year we employed x number of women and y number of minorities/indigenous. Give us your money". Social responsibility attracts SJW investors. We have seen large banks broadcast virtue signaling ads about gender equality. Do you really believe mining and banking directors are all just really nice folks?

 

[Frank Bunn]

I wholly disagree with you. Free will is largely an illusion. Environment (created by circumstance, including things you have no control over from what country you popped out of a vagina on, to what social status you are, to what ethnic group you belong to, to disability and so forth) create (or limit) your choices.

If you were born a Woman in Iran, you would be a very different person to who you are now.

There is a reason that people born into poverty and crime tend to be poor criminals as adults, and why people born to wealth and prestige tend to be wealthy themselves.

This is some of the most condescending codswallop I have ever seen. It's mostly peddled by people who were born into an easy life, and/or are making a living from the welfare industry and think they know best.

Are you really saying that you have arrived at where you are now in your life purely from your birth circumstances? Or has there been a series of choices/decisions that you have made that have determined your life?

Straw man no. 1 - 'Free will is largely an illusion'. We are not talking about the philosophical question of free will vs determinism. It's about people who make good decisions doing better than people who make bad decisions. Parents who turn up for work, don't drink themselves into a stupor every day, send their kids to school will have better outcomes that those that don't.

Straw man no. 2 - 'If you were born a Woman in Iran, you would be a very different person to who you are now'. And if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle. Women born in Iran who make good decisions in life do better than those who make bad decisions. But we are not talking about Iranian women. We are talking about people in Australia, some of whom were born into very bad circumstances. I've got a good mate who was born in Vietnam and whose family had a massive struggle to get here. They could have all died on a small boat and none of them spoke English. But now those kids are all working professionals - because their parents, despite growing up with nothing, but actually gave a s**t about their kids. They ******* craved that opportunity!

Straw man no. 3 - 'There is a reason that people born into poverty and crime tend to be poor criminals as adults, and why people born to wealth and prestige tend to be wealthy themselves'. It's not true. People who are criminals tend to be born of of poor, criminal circumstances but most people born into poverty and crime do not tend to be poor, criminals as adults.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The company I work for has a publicly stated aim of have a 50 / 50, male / female workforce by 2020.

Their holy trinity as far as recruitment purposes go are :

Female Aboriginal (know as a unicorn amongst HR staff)

Females / Aboriginal men (almost level pegging)

We have found out in the last few weeks what it would take for the company to sack one of the holy trinity.

Repeated sexual harassment of members from one of the other sub-groups within the holy trinity.

It was actually interesting to see where the line would be drawn.

Do they state a reason for wanting a 50/50, male/female workforce by 2020? My company does the same and no one questions it.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Do any of the female dominated industries (nursing, childcare, primary teaching etc) have targets to achieve a 50% male workforce?

 

[Malifice]

Basically, if you're in support of the idea that race is a social construct,

And I am n uspport of that idea, because 'science'.

and that individuals should be assigned benefits or assessed for jobs or housing etc based entirely upon merit

Which I dont.

End/ argument.

 

[Malifice]

Are you really saying that you have arrived at where you are now in your life purely from your birth circumstances?

To a large extent, yes. I am who I am because of the road I have travelled. Free will is largely an illusion.

Its one giant lie preached by all you RWNJ's. You presume everyone is born equal, and exersizes free will. The rich are only rich because they deserve to be rich. The poor are only poor becuase they deserve it.

It's total and utter codswallop.

Straw man no. 1 - 'Free will is largely an illusion'. We are not talking about the philosophical question of free will vs determinism. It's about people who make good decisions doing better than people who make bad decisions. Parents who turn up for work, don't drink themselves into a stupor every day, send their kids to school will have better outcomes that those that don't.

And what happens to the children? Which children have better opportunities due to those shitty parents?

Which kids are more likely to be junkie crims, teenage mothers, and living in poverty?

Ones with a good upbringing, good parents and born into wealth, or ones with bad upbringing, bad parents, and born into poverty?

Your world view is an illusion. Poverty (like crime and other social ills) is largely socially entrenched. You raise your kids in a third world shithole, with a terrible upbringing, teaching them to do crime, sexually abusing them and guess what the outcome almost invariably is?

Raise them well, with a good upbringing, and wealth and opportunities, and I bet they do a lot better.

Note how in each example given, the children havent actually had a say in what happens yet. They are entirely a product of their upbringing, and the decisions made by others.

 

[Malifice]

It's not clear at all.

Brennan J in his leading judgment in Mabo v Queensland (No 2), in relation to native title.

Membership of the Indigenous people depends on biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person’s membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.[20]​

The cases you cite both stated a requirement for biological descent but recognise the practical difficulties for some of proving that.

36.24 Drummond J commented that Deane J’s three-part test should not be regarded as containing an exhaustive description of the meaning in ordinary
speech of the term ‘Aboriginal’. His Honour held that a person must have some degree of Aboriginal descent to satisfy the definition of an ‘Aboriginal person’. A small degree of Aboriginal descent coupled with genuine self-identification or with communal recognition may be sufficient for eligibility; alternatively, a substantial degree of descent may by itself be sufficient.[28] Drummond J recognised the probative value of communal recognition as evidence of Aboriginal descent.

36.25 In Shaw v Wolf, the Federal Court again considered the meaning of an ‘Aboriginal person’ for the purposes of the ATSIC Act. Merkel J held that if
a person has no Aboriginal descent then he or she cannot be an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the Act. However, evidence about the process by which self-identification and communal identification occurs can be probative of descent.[30] Merkel J referred to the lack of documentary records and to the reticence of some families of Aboriginal descent to publicly acknowledge that fact due to actual or perceived racism from the rest of the community.​

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-aboriginality

It is clear.

You're quoting Merkel J in Shaw v Wolf. His Honor held in Shaw v Wolf that Aboriginal descent is "technical" rather than "real" – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.

Get it yet? 'Descent' does not need to be biological.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It is clear.

You're quoting Merkel J in Shaw v Wolf. His Honor held in Shaw v Wolf that Aboriginal descent is "technical" rather than "real" – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.

Get it yet? 'Descent' does not need to be biological.

Yeah, nah. You are cherry picking. It's clear that most court cases have determined that biological descent is required. And Aboriginal opinion is stronger than Federal court views on this issue.

 

[strung_out7]

The company I work for has a publicly stated aim of have a 50 / 50, male / female workforce by 2020.

Their holy trinity as far as recruitment purposes go are :

Female Aboriginal (know as a unicorn amongst HR staff)

Females / Aboriginal men (almost level pegging)

We have found out in the last few weeks what it would take for the company to sack one of the holy trinity.

Repeated sexual harassment of members from one of the other sub-groups within the holy trinity.

It was actually interesting to see where the line would be drawn.

Check out any of the big mining companies in WA. A fair chunk of the jobs are determined by sex and skin colour rather than qualification and work ethic. In fact, read some of the articles written in mining chronicles and how everything is about 'inclusion'.

 

[Fat Yak]

To a large extent, yes. I am who I am because of the road I have travelled. Free will is largely an illusion.

Its one giant lie preached by all you RWNJ's. You presume everyone is born equal, and exersizes free will. The rich are only rich because they deserve to be rich. The poor are only poor becuase they deserve it.

It's total and utter codswallop.



And what happens to the children? Which children have better opportunities due to those shitty parents?

Which kids are more likely to be junkie crims, teenage mothers, and living in poverty?

Ones with a good upbringing, good parents and born into wealth, or ones with bad upbringing, bad parents, and born into poverty?

Your world view is an illusion. Poverty (like crime and other social ills) is largely socially entrenched. You raise your kids in a third world shithole, with a terrible upbringing, teaching them to do crime, sexually abusing them and guess what the outcome almost invariably is?

Raise them well, with a good upbringing, and wealth and opportunities, and I bet they do a lot better.

Note how in each example given, the children havent actually had a say in what happens yet. They are entirely a product of their upbringing, and the decisions made by others.

Well done Mal, a lot of what you said actually made sense for once. These kids don't stand a snowballs chance in hell being raised in those horrible outback communities.

 

[strung_out7]

Well done Mal, a lot of what you said actually made sense for once. These kids don't stand a snowballs chance in hell being raised in those horrible outback communities.

Will the usual trolls come and label him a racist ?

 

[owen87]

They are entirely a product of their upbringing

I think this misses quite a lot; having external circumstances that make it more difficult to end up with a good outcome, doesn’t preclude someone from making good decisions and improving their lot in life.

To say that free will is nonexistent and that people have no input in to their own life outcomes is quite a reach.

 

[Frank Bunn]

To a large extent, yes. I am who I am because of the road I have travelled. Free will is largely an illusion.

Isn't the road you have travelled a product of the decisions you have made, not where you started from? Did everyone on your street/primary school class end up where you are now?

Its one giant lie preached by all you RWNJ's. You presume everyone is born equal, and exersizes free will. The rich are only rich because they deserve to be rich. The poor are only poor becuase they deserve it.

It's total and utter codswallop.

I don't know what a RWNJ is. I know that I've come from a poor background and many of my mates did - but it's not a limiting factor. People who make a living from telling people that they are victims and need support are limiting to those who might aspire to succeed.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Do they state a reason for wanting a 50/50, male/female workforce by 2020? My company does the same and no one questions it.

Good PR and you don't dare question.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Check out any of the big mining companies in WA. A fair chunk of the jobs are determined by sex and skin colour rather than qualification and work ethic. In fact, read some of the articles written in mining chronicles and how everything is about 'inclusion'.

A planning job is advertised. There are a multitude of suitable applicants plus at least one female working in Perth in retail with zero experience.

Female got the position, questioned everything while incumbents are try g to train her. Wants to change everything. It's explained to her that once she's got the hang of how they operate then she's more than welcome to suggest any changes that would deliver efficiencies and cost savings.

Not good enough. She starts covertly recording all of her conversations with her work colleagues and managers.

She is sacked and the rest of the planning department resigns.

People that were capable of doing the job and who had missed out on the position had since taken up positions with other companies or through internal transers.

 

[Proud SJW]

And I am n uspport of that idea, because 'science'.

"Science" doesn't actually know.
We don't fully know how the brain works.

End/ argument.

No, I don't think so. The kind of people who type in things like /thread aren't usually the sharpest tools in the shed.

So. You don't support equal opportunity and equal laws. Alright.
Next question. What do you support, and how would you handle it?

Also, and as an aside... are you the same guy who called out another poster for inserting a space before a full stop earlier? Just asking, because, grammar.

 

[kickazz]

Do they state a reason for wanting a 50/50, male/female workforce by 2020? My company does the same and no one questions it.

That's the thing, companies that put up these targets, without thinking about why they are doing it, are not particularly wise. Especially if the target will be a real stretch for them.

The main benefit I can see for a company doing this is that medium to long term, they will present themselves as an attractive employer for candidates of all backgrounds / gender etc, hence being able to get better quality applicants. The notion that engineering is for men and teaching is for women is really quite absurd. It is starting to change (get more balanced) at the University and junior level, but people still are biased to hiring people like themselves.

I think it's tough because whilst I agree with it from a big picture perspective, you can get some pretty mad situations along the way.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

That's the thing, companies that put up these targets, without thinking about why they are doing it, are not particularly wise. Especially if the target will be a real stretch for them.

The main benefit I can see for a company doing this is that medium to long term, they will present themselves as an attractive employer for candidates of all backgrounds / gender etc, hence being able to get better quality applicants. The notion that engineering is for men and teaching is for women is really quite absurd. It is starting to change (get more balanced) at the University and junior level, but people still are biased to hiring people like themselves.

I think it's tough because whilst I agree with it from a big picture perspective, you can get some pretty mad situations along the way.

The teaching one is strange to me.

Primary school in the 70s, about 50 / 50.

Secondary school in the 80s, about 65 / 35 in favour of men.

With my daughters at primary school and secondary school now. Primary school about 90 / 10 women. I know that the pedo has driven a lot of men out of primary teaching or discouraged them from doing it.

Secondary about 60 / 40 women.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

That's the thing, companies that put up these targets, without thinking about why they are doing it, are not particularly wise. Especially if the target will be a real stretch for them.

The main benefit I can see for a company doing this is that medium to long term, they will present themselves as an attractive employer for candidates of all backgrounds / gender etc, hence being able to get better quality applicants. The notion that engineering is for men and teaching is for women is really quite absurd. It is starting to change (get more balanced) at the University and junior level, but people still are biased to hiring people like themselves.

I think it's tough because whilst I agree with it from a big picture perspective, you can get some pretty mad situations along the way.

We've been having some serious teething problems up to this point in time not including the one I posted about earlier.

 

[kickazz]

The teaching one is strange to me.

Primary school in the 70s, about 50 / 50.

Secondary school in the 80s, about 65 / 35 in favour of men.

With my daughters at primary school and secondary school now. Primary school about 90 / 10 women. I know that the pedo has driven a lot of men out of primary teaching or discouraged them from doing it.

Secondary about 60 / 40 women.

Yeah I've got a mate (male) who is a primary school teacher. Recons he can basically get a job wherever he wants.