HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Aug 9, 2005 - Printable Version
- Penis Envy? Hell, no - How About Paycheck Envy?
by Robin Buckallew
From time to time, I read some article in the press about affirmative action. Whether these are in the mainstream press or the alternative press, it is usually the case that the article is written by a white male. This should really not be too much of a surprise, since white males make up the bulk of journalistic opinion writing. These opinions span the gamut from regarding affirmative action as the offspring of Satan himself that will lead to the total destruction of capitalism and free enterprise to accepting it as a flawed but necessary program that rises up the level of equality in this country and gives opportunities to struggling minorities and women. I have noticed that for those white males who take the latter opinion it is also very common that they feel the urgent need to include the statement that they, too, have been subjected to the ignominy of losing out on a desired job to a lesser-qualified woman or minority because of affirmative action. I suppose the purpose of this comment is to express empathy and understanding with the other white males in their readership who feel threatened by a program that places them in a difficult position. It is also possible that the purpose is to blow off some steam and let the world know that they, too, have been slighted, and they are righteously resentful. There is no doubt in my mind, however, about my own reaction to this comment - it outrages me. I find it quite interesting that in articles about affirmative action, it is very unusual to see the words "minority" or "woman" appear in such a reference, without them being prefaced by the words "lesser qualified". The question that always comes to my mind is, are they lesser qualified, then, because they are a minority or a woman? Are they lesser qualified for some failure on their own part? Or are they lesser qualified at all? It has been my experience that almost no one in this world has EVER lost out on a job to a more qualified individual. Whenever someone is steaming or stewing about not being hired for the job they so desire, there is always a lesser-qualified individual who has come swooping out of a black hole to snatch the perfect job from their deserving grasp. We all do this. None of us ever wants to admit that the reason we didn't get a job we wanted is because we weren't the best person for the job. Deep down inside, no matter what our protestations to the contrary, we are firmly convinced that we are indeed the best person for the job. The person interviewing us might be an idiot, and couldn't see that. We were just tired that day, and didn't interview well. Or we lost out because we were unlucky enough that a minority or a woman (lesser qualified, of course) also applied for the job, and we were the victims of affirmative action.
Another factor to consider in reading (or writing) these articles is that the impression that is left by that qualifier "lesser qualified" is often that the person who actually got the job is not qualified at all. For the most part, the individuals receiving the jobs through affirmative action do meet the minimum qualifications for the position being hired. They might lack a few years of experience that other applicants might have. They might have one less degree. But they do meet the qualifications, and the purpose of affirmative action is to help people who might have been passed over for a racist or sexist reason to get those years of experience that their skin color or gender might otherwise have prevented them from accumulating. It is also worthy of note that these articles are being written by men who are very successful, and who are being published in the national press. Obviously their failure to get that one position has not stymied their ability to achieve. They simply went somewhere else, and turned their talents and qualifications into a lucrative position on some other company's ladder.
Above all else, in the world of affirmative action articles, there is one fact that goes totally unmentioned. In the midst of all the white male posturing I have seen, I have never yet seen even lip service to one simple, salient, unmentioned fact - that minorities and women for many centuries have been losing out on desirable jobs to lesser qualified individuals, simply because those lesser qualified individuals were white males. You see, in spite of what often passes for conventional wisdom, for centuries there have been courageous and talented women and minorities who have achieved high levels of education and skills, often in spite of nearly insurmountable obstacles. They fight the system, achieve all the qualifications required, only to find out when they show up to apply for the job that the number one qualification is to be white, or male, or both. This trend has continued throughout the ages, and was still prevalent (though now mostly unspoken) in the latter part of the 20th century, and has continued into the early years of the 21st century. I wish I could begin to count the number of jobs I have applied for, and been turned down for, on some excuse or other, mostly because of the fact that I am a woman. It seems that even in this most enlightened of worlds, a fully educated, highly skilled individual may not be qualified for the best jobs unless they can pee standing up. Many of the best paid jobs out there are still in the status of "penis required". Most employers who follow this dictum will find ways, either subtle or not so subtle, to attempt to hide this fact, but it becomes glaringly obvious when one sits down and looks at the statistics. It is also surprisingly easy to bypass hiring those with skin that is less than creamy white, if one knows their way around the personnel rules.
How many times have you heard this? "We want to hire more blacks, but they just don't seem to be going into this field, and we didn't get very many that applied". "We would like to have more women, but they don't want to work the hours that are required, because of their children". These, and many other excuses, are the main explanations given. Most people will just smile and accept this, even though very often the facts on the ground fail to back up the assertion. It seems to make sense - how can you hire people who don't apply? Perhaps they don't apply because they've found out they won't be hired if they show up. After a time, even the most dedicated and hard working people will get discouraged, and cease showing up to apply for a job they know they won't be hired for. I know. That's happened to me. And when you do actually get hired, it is anybody's guess what sort of things they will have you doing. What sorts of "additional duties" are usually considered suited for highly skilled professional women? Making coffee comes to mind. Watering plants is another task I've been given. Another "duty" often given to women and minorities is a fairly simple one (for some - not so easy for me) - sitting down and shutting up. Let the "better qualified" white men do the talking at the meetings - you are only qualified to listen and learn from your betters. A case in point. Not too long ago, I attended a meeting for a project I was working on, traveling with my white male boss. All the way there, he was explaining to me how difficult it was for a white male to get a decent job anymore, because of affirmative action rules. This meeting was a meeting of upper and middle management people who were all in highly paid, responsible positions. Aside from myself, there was only one other woman at the meeting, and she was also in the same position I was - an intern paid to sit down and shut up while her white male boss took care of business. There was not a single non-white face in the room. All these highly paid professionals were white males, who went into fancy conference rooms and made all sorts of big plans for the project they were working on - plans which they then turned over to the two women in the room so that we could get to work implementing them (after we finished making coffee, of course).
Throughout the 20th century, minorities and women have been fighting tooth and nail for the opportunity to use our skills, our education and our brains alongside the white men. The fight has been hard and long, but we have won some very big battles. Now, because there are some women, some blacks, some Asians, some Mexicans working in positions of power, the white men are fighting back even harder. Affirmative action programs come under attack regularly. Employers deny that there is any discrimination in hiring, and find excuses such as the ones above to explain why their work force looks so suspiciously white, and so suspiciously male. I have seen all the tricks - hiring a great many temporary workers that are women and minorities, so your office looks evenly balanced, while all the full time permanent help is white and male. Hiring a great many minorities in low level clerical jobs, so anyone looking just at the numbers sees a good healthy percentage. Hiring minorities, and giving them such nonsensical or ridiculous jobs that they leave quickly, then you can say, "We try hiring minorities, but they never seem to last".
Another issue, of course, is salary. Affirmative action has allowed previously excluded groups to move into the work force, but the salary is still not equitable. Overall, the bulk of the big money these days is still controlled by white males. The female salary is, on average, only a little over 70% of the male salary for the same job. The salary for a black employee is even worse, with black women coming in at only somewhere around 55%. I'll admit one thing - women and minorities have managed to make some inroads into jobs with cheap bosses, who simply hire more women and minorities because they can get away with paying them less. These employees are not working fewer hours. They do not have fewer skills or qualifications for the position than their white male counterparts. The mere possession of a penis is considered a badge of honor for many employers, especially in the Deep South. Ideally, of course, this would be a white penis. Sometimes, the minority or the woman applying may actually have higher skill levels than the person who actually gets the job. Most of the employers are unaware of this, of course. A person who is hiring based on sexual or racial characteristics is usually unable to see the qualifications of the person that their deep-seated prejudices tell them is not capable of doing the job. It isn't deliberate. It's just a form of blindness that sets in when the view is hampered by pre-existing opinions. This is the reason that affirmative action is so desperately needed. For many of us, no matter how talented and skilled and educated we may be, we have grown so used to having doors slammed in our face that we have begun to be very wary. We have come to realize that we may not be the best qualified for the job, no matter how many years of education and experience we may have, no matter how many glowing recommendations we accumulate, no matter how well we interview. There is nothing to be gained to sit there in bitterness and resentment every time I read a self-proclaimed liberal male on the pages of Nation magazine inform me that he is for affirmative action, even though he himself has lost jobs to "lesser-qualified" women and minorities. There is much to be gained from continuing to press onward, to keep trying, to keep knocking on those doors, even knowing that the job might be filled by someone whose main qualification is possession of that most desired of traits - vertical urination.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).