I know a couple of people who have claimed that because of positive discrimination it is now the case that White men are now face more discrimination than any other group. I think this issue is worth looking at for a couple of reasons. Firstly the most recent statistics I could find at the Office for National Statistics website show that the only group with a higher rate of employment is that of White women by around 1%. That is to say roughly that for a group of 100 White men around 95 would be employed whereas for White women it would be 96. In contrast the unemployment rate for most non-White groups was two or three times that. The sole exception was Indians at around 7% for men and 8% for women. This strongly suggests that discrimination against white men is likely to be marginal at best.
The second statistic I want to look at is the percentage of the population in managerial and professional jobs. Unfortunately these stats are only broken down by ethnicity and not by gender but they are still revealing. The most likely groups to be employed in managerial and professional jobs are in order Chinese, Indian and Whites. The least likely groups where Black Caribbean and Black African. As these jobs tend to be better paid than others this again suggests that there is little if any evidence of discrimination against White Men.
Of course these statistics are six years out of date and come from before the recession. It would be more interesting and illuminating to study statistics from 2008 or 2009 but as those are yet to be published we will have to stick with these. The other point to make is that my statistical analysis is crude at best. (Perhaps someone with a better understanding could crunch the numbers for me?)But given what we’ve got it suggests that White men do not need to fear discrimination. This raises two questions; the first is why do White men feel that they are being discriminated against? The second is whether the employment statistics show a case for affirmative action?
I suspect the answer to the first comes from an atmosphere whereby affirmative action schemes and minority pressure groups have received a lot of media attention. The effect is to create the impression of discrimination despite the lack of actual cases of it. Of there is some discrimination against White men put in proportion to the discrimination experienced by other groups it is small.
The second question I don’t feel able to answer, however it strikes me that there is a simple test for exploring whether there is a problem. If we assume that that there is no difference between ethnicities then we would expect business to have a roughly representative pattern of employment. Of course there are cultural and historical differences between ethnic groups so we should not be surprised when we find a group over represented in profession and under represented in another. However this lack of representation should be taken as a sign that there is something to investigate. Of course sometimes it may be obvious why this is the case. We would not expect to find many Pakistanis working behind a bar because most Pakistanis are Muslim and therefore regard bar work as haram (forbidden) but other times there may be a case of discrimination.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Sunday, 25 July 2010
David Mitchell and the Burqa
In this blog post (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/david-mitchell-burqa-ban-tattoos) David Mitchell manages to capture rather accurately what I think is wrong with arguments to ban the burqa or tattoos or for that matter anything which does not directly harm another person.
This seems to be a rather important issue as one of the fundamental cornerstones of liberal thought. (Liberal in the traditonal sense rather than the mordern.) Is that the goverment shall not restrict an individuals freedom untill the point when that freedom violates another. So for example I am free to learn boxing, and indeed use it but I can only do so in a specified area against people who consent to fight me. I'm not allowed to go up to someone on the street and beat them up because then my freedom to punch is less important than their freedom not to get beaten up.
This seems to be a rather important issue as one of the fundamental cornerstones of liberal thought. (Liberal in the traditonal sense rather than the mordern.) Is that the goverment shall not restrict an individuals freedom untill the point when that freedom violates another. So for example I am free to learn boxing, and indeed use it but I can only do so in a specified area against people who consent to fight me. I'm not allowed to go up to someone on the street and beat them up because then my freedom to punch is less important than their freedom not to get beaten up.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Thoughts on Isreal Palestine
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue that seems to generate an unusually high level of controversy compared to many others. I’m not particularly interested in why this is, but I thought a look at the various stances would be interesting. This comes in part from the observation that so many of my friends and family have passionate and vastly differing views about it. For the sake of this article I’m going to make distinction between stances and views. Stances I will take to mean that extent of support that an individual gives towards one side or the other, whilst the view is the side that they support. So for example the first stance that one side is always right and the other always wrong. So this stance can have either a pro Israel view or a pro Palestinian view. For the sake of convenience I will use (I) for Israeli and (P) for Palestinian to refer to these respective views.
I suspect and hope that few people actually hold the first stance. At least in principle it should be obviously wrong to anyone who is capable of rational thought; why? Because both sides are human and will therefore make mistakes, act out of spite rather than a sense of justice and so on. For those who do hold such a stance it seems that a debate is unlikely to be productive because they have already decided the answer. There is a slightly more rational way that this stance may be articulated, which is to say that the respective cause is such that any action is justified in furthering the cause.
The second and more interesting stance would be that one side’s cause is right and the other side’s is wrong. Those who hold this stance acknowledge the possibility that their side might perform actions that are wrong, even if they deny the actuality of it. So for example (I) might think that the Israeli cause is correct but that the Blockade of Gaza is wrong. This stance could be held in a variety of different strengths so for example (P) at its strongest in this stance would say that every action taken so far to advance the Palestinian cause is justified but would accept that there would be some possible actions that shouldn’t be taken. In contrast (P) at its weakest would hold that whilst the cause is justified nearly all the actions so far undertaken have been wrong.
The third stance is the ‘plague on both your houses’ stance it quite simply states that both sides are as bad as each other. I have a strong suspicion that many who adopt this stance do so to avoid actually having to argue about the issue; an understandable motivation given the passion with which it is usually debated. At this point I would need to point out that an error I have deliberately been making. I have talked about the Israeli and Palestinian cause as if each one was a single unified thing. This simply isn’t true. There are a variety of Israeli and Palestinian causes with different objectives and motivations. The reason I have allowed this to slip by is because its a blog post not an academic essay!
But I need to remind you of this for the final stance I shall outline. This stance is that neither side is simply right or wrong but rather that there are several causes and some causes are justified and some aren’t. So for example someone with this stance might hold that Israel is right in aiming to provide a homeland for the Jewish people whilst at the same time Palestinians are right in feeling that their land has been stolen. Now I feel that this is probably the write stance to adopt for a couple of reasons. First I suspect it is the closest to reflecting the actual situation. To dismiss Palestinian grievances or Israeli worries about security would be foolish and fail to appreciate both current issues and historical grievances. The second reason is that it seems like those who hold this stance will have the best chance of reaching agreement and proposing a compromise. So this is rather long but here is a simplified version of my thoughts on a situation that I’m totally unqualified to talk about. Lets see how many people I’ve offended ;-).
I suspect and hope that few people actually hold the first stance. At least in principle it should be obviously wrong to anyone who is capable of rational thought; why? Because both sides are human and will therefore make mistakes, act out of spite rather than a sense of justice and so on. For those who do hold such a stance it seems that a debate is unlikely to be productive because they have already decided the answer. There is a slightly more rational way that this stance may be articulated, which is to say that the respective cause is such that any action is justified in furthering the cause.
The second and more interesting stance would be that one side’s cause is right and the other side’s is wrong. Those who hold this stance acknowledge the possibility that their side might perform actions that are wrong, even if they deny the actuality of it. So for example (I) might think that the Israeli cause is correct but that the Blockade of Gaza is wrong. This stance could be held in a variety of different strengths so for example (P) at its strongest in this stance would say that every action taken so far to advance the Palestinian cause is justified but would accept that there would be some possible actions that shouldn’t be taken. In contrast (P) at its weakest would hold that whilst the cause is justified nearly all the actions so far undertaken have been wrong.
The third stance is the ‘plague on both your houses’ stance it quite simply states that both sides are as bad as each other. I have a strong suspicion that many who adopt this stance do so to avoid actually having to argue about the issue; an understandable motivation given the passion with which it is usually debated. At this point I would need to point out that an error I have deliberately been making. I have talked about the Israeli and Palestinian cause as if each one was a single unified thing. This simply isn’t true. There are a variety of Israeli and Palestinian causes with different objectives and motivations. The reason I have allowed this to slip by is because its a blog post not an academic essay!
But I need to remind you of this for the final stance I shall outline. This stance is that neither side is simply right or wrong but rather that there are several causes and some causes are justified and some aren’t. So for example someone with this stance might hold that Israel is right in aiming to provide a homeland for the Jewish people whilst at the same time Palestinians are right in feeling that their land has been stolen. Now I feel that this is probably the write stance to adopt for a couple of reasons. First I suspect it is the closest to reflecting the actual situation. To dismiss Palestinian grievances or Israeli worries about security would be foolish and fail to appreciate both current issues and historical grievances. The second reason is that it seems like those who hold this stance will have the best chance of reaching agreement and proposing a compromise. So this is rather long but here is a simplified version of my thoughts on a situation that I’m totally unqualified to talk about. Lets see how many people I’ve offended ;-).
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Up again
I know no one is reading this yet, but I thought I'd restart this blog as a current affairs-philosophy style thing. So hopefully I'll get some readers at some point.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Going Home.
Hi all
Well its our last day in the US. We are packed and waiting to go, and can't wait to land in London. The trip has been great fun and well worth it.
And we will see you all tommorow.
Dan.
Well its our last day in the US. We are packed and waiting to go, and can't wait to land in London. The trip has been great fun and well worth it.
And we will see you all tommorow.
Dan.
Thursday, 30 August 2007
New York, New York
Hi All.
We have now arrived in New York. The last week in Boston was fun, as we got to see the Aquarium, The Boston Science Museum and Harvard (or Hahvad) as the locals spell it. We also got to go shopping in an "outlet village". Heaven for wannabe Paris Hiltons, depressing for me. Freya loved it however and Chris shrugged his shoulders and got on with it.
Although the Aquarium was smaller than the one in Atlanta, it was far better designed and included a massive tank holding a miniature coral reef. The original intention as far as the Aquarium went was to go whale watching, however we arrived to late to catch the boat, so we went to the Aquarium instead.
The Boston Science Museum however was massive, think INTECH and then quadruple it, and then make it grow up, and you have the science museum. I could happily have spent a couple of days exploring it and going to the various lectures they held. Unfortunately we only had a few hours and only saw a fraction of the exhibits.
Harvard was interesting. The campus was beautiful, and there where some very nice museums, however due to poor planning we failed to find the constiution and Bunker Hill, which we where told where in the area.
Our journey to New York was uneventful, despite the promises of some Bostonians that the Fung Wah bus would either crash, or be attacked by gangsters, and now hear we are in the Big Apple deciding what to do for the next few days before we get home.
See you all soon. Dan
We have now arrived in New York. The last week in Boston was fun, as we got to see the Aquarium, The Boston Science Museum and Harvard (or Hahvad) as the locals spell it. We also got to go shopping in an "outlet village". Heaven for wannabe Paris Hiltons, depressing for me. Freya loved it however and Chris shrugged his shoulders and got on with it.
Although the Aquarium was smaller than the one in Atlanta, it was far better designed and included a massive tank holding a miniature coral reef. The original intention as far as the Aquarium went was to go whale watching, however we arrived to late to catch the boat, so we went to the Aquarium instead.
The Boston Science Museum however was massive, think INTECH and then quadruple it, and then make it grow up, and you have the science museum. I could happily have spent a couple of days exploring it and going to the various lectures they held. Unfortunately we only had a few hours and only saw a fraction of the exhibits.
Harvard was interesting. The campus was beautiful, and there where some very nice museums, however due to poor planning we failed to find the constiution and Bunker Hill, which we where told where in the area.
Our journey to New York was uneventful, despite the promises of some Bostonians that the Fung Wah bus would either crash, or be attacked by gangsters, and now hear we are in the Big Apple deciding what to do for the next few days before we get home.
See you all soon. Dan
Thursday, 23 August 2007
sorry in Boston now
Sorry everyone who has been following us for the lack of posting it's been completely my fault, either been to tired or forgetful to do it.
Well Boston, its a beautiful city that is for sure wv're been wondering aimlessly round it for the past few days just getting a feel for the city but I feel its been worth it. we did a walking tour of the city today, was about two and a half hours but the tour guide was really good and we got to know loads about the history of the city.
We have been staying with the Waldinger's for the past six days but we are being forced to move on, but we shall not go far, we are going to stay with James and Frayer until the 30th, at least
dan thiniks that is when he booked the hostel in NY but he keeps forgeting to check so I may have to beat him until he does it tonight, but dont worry, I wont do it hard.
You will all be pleased to know, well we are anyway, tat we are done with Greyhound buses. We are going to take a bus called the Fung Wah buss to NY. Its the longest running bus in the USA started by a Korean family to transport the oriental families to NY so they could work. They just take anybody now but it only cost $10 so we dont care and its only a four hour trip. Greyhound however gave us a good send off, a perfect 12 hour trip from Niagara. They got us there dead on time and we were never waiting arround, just getting off one bus and on to the next on the 2 transfers we had to make. unfortionatly that gave us no time to eat for that time and as we hadnt had breakfast either...well you can imagine.
Well must go my stomach is telling my food is ready and Jenifer's cooking is not to be missed.
See you all soon, 13 days beth tells me, and just over 1million seconds, well it was about 10 hours ago, i'll let you wrk out how many left now.
Chris and Dan
Well Boston, its a beautiful city that is for sure wv're been wondering aimlessly round it for the past few days just getting a feel for the city but I feel its been worth it. we did a walking tour of the city today, was about two and a half hours but the tour guide was really good and we got to know loads about the history of the city.
We have been staying with the Waldinger's for the past six days but we are being forced to move on, but we shall not go far, we are going to stay with James and Frayer until the 30th, at least
dan thiniks that is when he booked the hostel in NY but he keeps forgeting to check so I may have to beat him until he does it tonight, but dont worry, I wont do it hard.
You will all be pleased to know, well we are anyway, tat we are done with Greyhound buses. We are going to take a bus called the Fung Wah buss to NY. Its the longest running bus in the USA started by a Korean family to transport the oriental families to NY so they could work. They just take anybody now but it only cost $10 so we dont care and its only a four hour trip. Greyhound however gave us a good send off, a perfect 12 hour trip from Niagara. They got us there dead on time and we were never waiting arround, just getting off one bus and on to the next on the 2 transfers we had to make. unfortionatly that gave us no time to eat for that time and as we hadnt had breakfast either...well you can imagine.
Well must go my stomach is telling my food is ready and Jenifer's cooking is not to be missed.
See you all soon, 13 days beth tells me, and just over 1million seconds, well it was about 10 hours ago, i'll let you wrk out how many left now.
Chris and Dan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
