I loved this debate between Saadna and Devil’s mind about Corporate discrimination as responce to my polls results of the Tazaj employment advertisment in the news paper where they requested explicitly veiled women to work for them.
Both Saadna and Devil’s mind made excellent argument.
Devil’s mind argues that discrimination is a basic human right. That the employer has the right to choose whomever he wants to work with him because he isn’t opening a charity. He also said that we do dicriminate in our daily life. Friendship and Love are based on discrimination.
Saadna argues that discrimination is a molestation for human rights. She says that we can’t compare discrimination of love and friendship to that at work-place.
While I still can’t form a solid stand, here is what I think of this so far:
I think that there is nothing absolute. Discrimination is accepted in places and isn’t accepted in others.
It does sound hypocritical, right? But I don’t think it is. Business associations discrimination is a glorified kind of discrimination than of individual ones.
While both is not right in my opinion, the effect of enterprise discrimination is much more damaging to a society than that at a personal level.
In addition to that, we can’t control personal choices, but we can try to empower equality between citizens.
On personal level, I dont think it is right to choose your friend/lover based on his race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. This depends on how mature the individual is, and how much perception he has in this world to understand that all of those attributes don’t make a person a worse or better of a friend/lover.
I would love to gather others opinions on this.
What do you think?
I love this post about discrimination. It helps that I’m in it 😀
The key point is the relevancy of whatever is being discriminated against. In the workplace, this has become a blurry issue, as being the most qualified for some positions no longer means merely being the most skilled. Unfair discrimination is easily defined but not easily identified- disapproving of attributes that are in no way linked to the job performance. But I think there are some purely physical features that cannot ethically be discriminated, unless there is a genuine religious or practical reason.
But when it comes to personal relationships, it’s a much more subjective and personal form of discrimination. Essentially, nothing is unfair, because while many attributes (race, sex, religion, etc) may not make a less worthy potential partner, it does compromise the ability for someone discriminatory to engage in a fulfilling relationship.
Calling someone who will not become involved with a person solely based on one of these attributes shallow, immature or close-minded doesn’t change the simple fact that they are entitled to choose their friends and lovers based on whatever factors they please.
:), I love it too Saad, because you are in it.
Anonymous, yes everyone entitled to choose their friends and lovers based on whatever please them, but it does make a person immature if he makes his choice base on some of those attributes that are not linked in anyway with how good/bad a person can be.
Try to expand this view by asking: Is it okay to discriminate at work?!
Well, sure you HAVE TO at some point make a discrimination.
Imagine, you have one job, and two candidates. One candidate holds a PhD with an A grade and 6 years of expertize. The other candidate has a D-grade bachelor, and no expertize.
Are you gonna tell me that both of them qualify the job equally?!
Sure not! But is that form of discrimination acceptable?! Is discrimination according to academic level acceptable? Is discrimination according to expertize acceptable?!
There is no basis to say that discrimination according to skill is any different than discrimination than anyother type!!
Our whole life is based on discrimination. You just cannot change that!
Exactly my point, anyone who chooses their personal relationships based on shallow/immature guidelines is probably not an ideal choice for a relationship themselves!
And devil’s mind, I think there is a basis to differentiate between discrimination of skill and discrimination of say, skin colour. Someone’s skills and abilities determine whether or not they can actually perform adequately at the job in question! So of course an employer is going to hire the more qualified, because they are at an economical disadvantage otherwise. Choice of lifestyle, nation of origin, or your parents heritage in most cases would not affect job performance. It’s specious to blanket discrimination.
Devil’s mind, you are taking it into totally different direction.
An employer should have a valid argument of why he chose a certain employee over the other. The main goal is to hire the best one qualitfied to do a certain job. If for instance bother employees have the same set of skills that allow them to do the same job in the same way, then preferring one of them because of his color for instance isn’t right.
This is what we are talking about.
It can be apply the same way in friendship. If you have 2 friends who meet the criteria of being good friends while one has different color than the other, then it wouldn’t be right to choose one’s friendship over the other.
Yes, it is a basic human right for us to *choose*, but it is another thing to inflict harm on certain group of people because of their difference where we judge them out of ignorance.
“Is discrimination according to academic level acceptable? Is discrimination according to expertize acceptable?!”
You can’t answer this in abstract. It depends on the importance of the academic level or expertize in the matter at hand.
If a job requires more knowledge to be done then it does matter, but if it is a matter of having sex with the person for instance then it is absurd to discriminate based on his academic level.
If a job requires more knowledge to be done then it does matter, but if it is a matter of having sex with the person for instance then it is absurd to discriminate based on his academic level. – So can’t we say that a secretary has to beautiful woman?! Its part of the job!
Every job has a set of properties on which a candidate is differentiated from another.
My point is, we cannot impose on the employer a set of properties on which he can differentiate between candidates, and those he cannot.
Every employer knows his company and the needs of his company. He is the one responsible to make business decisions, not the government!!
you are taking it into totally different direction. – No, I am not. It’s all interrelated. You cannot see a particle of sand, and judge the whole earth. You should take everything into considerations! If you think “discrimination” should not be allowed, try to think of all the good discrimination has brought about! The biggest of which, in my opinion, is friendship.
My suggestion is, if you don’t like what “Tazaj” has done, stop buying from them. If there is a boring blog in the blogosphere, you have two choices. Call Google, and ask them to shut that blog down. The other choice, the one I support is, stop visiting it. If a blog is boring, people will stop visiting it. We cannot make a law that forbids boring blogs… Its that simple!
Wish it is that simple 🙂
I don’t like Tazaj in the first place, so I don’t usually buy from them 🙂
And the blog example, is just different. Boring blogs doesn’t discriminate between people 🙂
I admit that I am having a hard time answering to you. You always give logical arguments, and materials for me to think about.
I dont’t think that being beautiful does make any secretary do her job better unless she helps to ease down the tension of her boss 😉 which is something else.
I would say also that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It would be bad to advertise asking for beautiful women, but you won’t notice it when the employer pick the one he thinks is beautiful when he makes his choice.
I don’t think that anyone would notice if the employer of Tazaj hired veiled women without adversiting it. It would be descrimination, but no one can say anything about it. What affected me is the racist ad.
In a personal level no one can judge, but in a newspaper, it does affect people feeling discriminated against.
Maybe we should define the kind of discrimination we talk about. Using the word in abstract doesn’t help.
You said “Discrimination brought friendship”
How does race, religion, color discrimination bring friendship?
Does that mean if you change your believes you loose your friends? where is the beauty in this? and where is the friendship in this? Is is a real friendship?
How does race, religion, color discrimination bring friendship?
The problem man is that you fail to see the big picture.
Who said that discrimination ends at “race”, “religion” and “color”?! There are millions of ways to discriminate people.
Do you love your Dad just as much as you love your friend’s dad?!
If you think all people are the same, why do you pick someone to be your friend?! Can a friend be “generic”?! Like you go down the street and randomly pick someone to be your friend?!
Do you treat your friends just like anyother person?! Because after all, you cannot discriminate, of course!
Would you marry just any girl, because all girls are the same?! ARE THEY REALLY ALL THE SAME?!
It would be bad to advertise asking for beautiful women, but you won’t notice it when the employer pick the one he thinks is beautiful when he makes his choice. – So you actually support discrimination, as long as people don’t do it publicly?!
Man you stretch it here. Ofcourse I do love my dad more than his friend. This isn’t discrimination. Not the one we are talking about. It can’t be in no way compared to the discrimination at work place based on color or race.
Each situation differ. If you are argueing to prove the world in abstract. Then I dont have an answer for you. Discrimination is right or wrong? Do you want this answer to right? It can’t be. It depends on what kind of discrimination you talk about, and what do you mean of discrimination and the situation it happened in.
Sure people are different. No one can argue that. We should cherish our differences. We can use it in a good way rather of a bad way.
when you inflict injustice on people. Then yes, it is wrong. When you cause harm to people, then it is wrong. When it happens in public and affect the equality of citizens, then it should be handled.
So you actually support discrimination, as long as people don’t do it publicly?!
No, I dont support it, but I understand that it happens and can’t be controlled.
Explain to me exactly, how the way you discriminate by loving your dad more than other dads is basically different from another discrimination?!
Its all discrimination! How exactly is injustice inflicted when an employer picks his employee?! He has no obligation to hire anyone to start with!! The injustice is to poke your nose in other people’s business and tell them how to do their business…
How exactly is business any different from personal relationships?! There is no difference in the eyes of the law!
My dad did raise me. He taught me much. He passed his genes to me. He worked hard to give me a good life.
If I loved him more than other dads, does this mean discrimination? It doesn’t. If any other dad treated me the same, then I would love him the same. Fair?
Now how injustice inflicted when an employer picks his employees based on religious views for example?
Lets for instance have 2 women. Both Muslims. One is veiled the other is not. Both are in need of the job. The unveiled woman had better qualitfications because she worked harder before to aquire them and in return she can do a better job. The veiled woman has less qualitfications because she didn’t work hard enough in the past.
How just it is to pick the less qualified for the job because she is just wearing a veil?
Every business organisation has a social obligation. The employer can marry the veiled woman. It is his choice. But when it comes to public, a limitation should placed.
If we allowed this, then others would do the same. Everyone would advertise for his own prefenrece. Hatred and racism would infliced more and more in our society. It would just make the situation worse.
How come business different than personal relationships in the eyes of law???! You don’t pay taxes for your personal relationships? Do you 😉
It seems to me that you just have a problem with women not being veiled.
If any other dad treated me the same, then I would love him the same. Fair?
Fair enough for me. So why not a veiled girl take off her veil to get the job. They are not discriminating against her, its just that she wears a veil!
devil’s mind, because first it isn’t slavery. People have the right to choose what they wear although some firms do dictate a dress code.
Second, because it isn’t about the piece of cloth you put on your head. It is about the religion of the woman and her faith which is something shouldn’t be related to her job and shoudn’t be imposed on her.
But u impose on other dads to treat u nicely, in order to love them same as u your your biological dad… How fair is that?!
devil’s mind, because first it isn’t slavery. – Sure, its not slavery… Its a take it or leave it kind of deal!
I am not imposing anything on anyone. They don’t need or want me to love them the same way I love my dad.
I can see the fine line you are walking on but it isn’t enough to convince me. We are comparing two different things.
Its a take it or leave it kind of deal!
It doesn’t work this way. We have rules to prevent people from abusing each other, even at the well of the abused person.
They don’t need or want me to love them the same way I love my dad. – You don’t know that!!
I know that u see what I am saying, but I don’t see why u insist on neglecting it…
If other dads don’t need u, also the unveiled girl can find herself a million other jobs!!
Here is the problem. It isn’t the same. Jobs is a surviving matter. It isn’t easy to find another million jobs as you say.
But in the end, its a matter of ethics.
Do you think people should earn what they get?! Or just given everything for free?!
I would go with the “earning” path!
In both cases, whether its your dad, or managing a company, you are making decisions based on your code of ethics. So in both cases, the same logic applies. At least I think so.
Guess this is my basic premise. That I consider all businesses to be follow the same rules. Whether it was parenthood, marriage, friendship, love, or a company… They all are based on how you decide to deal with other people.
For me, I deal with people on individualistic basis. Each person is different from the other. Each person has unique characteristics… And based on those characteristics, I decide how to deal with them.
I understand what you say. In principal I don’t think that we disagree. Maybe I am looking at it from the employee point of view where I don’t like to see anyone imposing his own believes someone else.
You look it from the employer point of view. You don’t want others believes and ideas to be imposed on the employer as you think he has the right to choose his employees.
I agree on that, but I think there should be some limits. Some rules to defend the weaker link. Here I perceive it to be the employee.
Anyway, it was a nice conversation. Thanks for making me think 🙂
I agree on that, but I think there should be some limits. Some rules to defend the weaker link. – In my opinion, those limits are in the employment contract. Whenever u hire someone, u make a contract of both rights and duties of both sides. This is the judge and the limit. I think this is an important issue to stress.
Sometimes the government has to step in to guarantee to help the weak from getting abused.
There is a contrant yes. But there are limits that this contrant shouldn’t exceed.
Okay, here I disagree. The government’s only business is enforcing the terms of the contract. So if one of the parties defies the contract, he can get his ass busted.
But the government has no business to impose on the terms of the contract. If someone freely and consentingly signs a contract, then he is bound to that contract!
Also, if the girl doesn’t want to be abused, she can get a job in the public sector (that belonging to the government), instead of the private sectors (privately owned companies).
I think this would be a fair solution!
I say that the government has every right to put some rules and limitations on business contacts. It already does.
As of women finding jon in public sector. Do you think it is easy? If the government is able to provide decent jobs for all Jordanians then we would have many less problems.
The argument between Saadna and Devil’s eye is interesting indeed…I liked it a lot!!
I enjoyed the discrimination between saadna and devil’s eye…good post 🙂