I actually think a bit of racial venting is a good thing

But to say the White person is being discriminated against from its own government?? how can i say this .................a epitome of ignorance perhaps?

Do you mean venting as in "discussing" or venting as in "name calling"?

Lord Stanley Lord Stanley bring me some brandy, The fact you can say that with a straight face is amazing? last time I checked the Leaders of our nation is caucasian, the Premier of our great province? the Bank of Canada Governor? RCMP chief, OPP chief it certainly isn't Dudley Running Bull? or Vladimir Krutov? or Latrell Jackson? lets see I wonder who the Royal bank of Canada CEO is , it isn't Chung Tam-Wong

Like some magical object in a fantasy novel, the idea of "affirmative action" has shape-shifted with chameleon-like facility over the past three decades. At first, the goal sought was equality under the law. This is the first and only legitimate use of this concept in a society founded upon justice, that is, the idea that the law should not take cognizance of someone's race, sex, color, etc., but should instead apply equally and impartially to all. Such a legal environment is built on the understanding that ethics and rights are based upon the individual; that a person is responsible only for the actions and subsequent effects which he personally initiates.

That admirable goal was, unfortunately, cast in clay rather than stone. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, "affirmative action" melted from a recognition of equality under the law to a desire for equality of opportunity. Even when the Federal government acceded to this transformation by enacting new regulations and laws, the champions of affirmative action remained dissatisfied.

With a malleability reminiscent of the reversal of meaning "liberalism" has undergone since the Nineteenth Century, "affirmative action" came to mean equality of results regardless of the objective reasons for any disparities in the economic conditions of our nation's citizens.

The latest twist on this verbal sleight-of-hand comes in the form of the previously mentioned "glass ceiling." Some feminists state that this "under-representation" of women at the most rarified heights of business is a result of conscious decisions and overt anti-women prejudice on the part of company CEO's, presidents, and boards of directors.

Other, somewhat more generous critics see the dearth of female business leaders as an inexorable result of subconscious prejudice: the psychological and cultural fallout of years of male domination in our society. In either case, once again the Siren call for Federal intervention to "correct" such "inequities" echoes across the political landscape.

Two points need to be made in regard to this situation.

The first fact is that to become the CEO or president of a major corporation means forsaking -- or at least subordinating -- nearly all other aspects of life to one's career. Such a level of responsibility along with its attendant financial success requires putting in seventy- or eighty-hour weeks; demands one's almost complete submersion in and dedication to overseeing both the short-term and long-run needs of the business one manages; and results in the loss of time available to spend with family or in recreation.

The desirability of such a goal is not relevant in the current context. What is necessary to recognize is the fact that in our society, more men than women -- for whatever reasons -- are willing to commit themselves to the course of action demanded by such a rigorous goal. Even if there were no prejudice against women in business, the disparate numbers in the pools of available male and female candidates actively striving for this end would lead to a male/female ratio in line with that observed today.

As an example of this general process, consider the health field. In health care, nursing is almost exclusively the province of women and one which is relatively well-paid. Nurses in a large hospital in Iowa, for instance, can earn $25-40,000 a year. Yet many of the nurses I know voluntarily seek and accept only part-time positions. Some of these women want to spend more time watching their children grow; they don't want to miss those early years of rapid change. Others simply prefer more free time to engage in activities they enjoy. In most such cases, the husband works full-time.

In any event, the rejection by these nurses of the full-time careers available to them or of the graduate level education necessary for administrative careers results in a lower average wage for all nurses...and, more indirectly, for women in general. Yet this effect is a consequence of voluntary choices, not prejudice.

Likewise, many women forsake high-powered business careers in favor of the less tangible rewards of greater flexibility in work schedules; of more time invested in the raising of a family; and of wider opportunities for non-monetary personal development.

Overall, women work fewer hours than men; have less job experience and work fewer years; and avoid work in risky or unpleasant jobs which tend to be more highly compensated. Also, marriage and children tend to depress earnings for women when compared to men or single females. Unfortunately, some feminists prefer to focus solely on the issue of wages and promotions as measures of how much society values women. They have no incentive to impute economic importance to a homemaking career. To do so would undermine their case for widespread discrimination. But while material goods are necessary and desirable, they are by no means the sole standard we should use in judging someone's worth.

Even for many women who do devote their full attention to career issues, many fail adequately to understand how much of the corporate world works. Advancement in the business world frequently is based upon principles most men subconsciously learn as they grow up. It operates in ways emulating team sports and the military chain-of-command. Women who fail to understand the importance of office politics, going through the proper channels, and being able to make decisions quickly put themselves at an automatic disadvantage. Corporate life is a game which is not always fair: for men or women. Being able to take risks without making waves, being a team player who can operate independently when necessary, and participating in after-hours activities may not set well with some women, but for the present, the reality of the situation needs to be acknowledged if it is ever to change.

Despite any barriers of prejudice remaining in business and elsewhere, there is no need to invoke conscious (or subconscious) male-led conspiracies designed to deny women opportunities for achievement. Whatever the objective merits or shortcomings of the different goals selected by men and women, the reality of those differences provides a sufficient explanation for most situations. Businesses which continue to hire only males for top level positions out of a desire to maintain a "good old boys" environment will -- in a free society -- eventually find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with rivals who promote more competent, "underpaid" females to do the same kind of work.

The second point to be made on this issue is that all the (invalid) derivative permutations of "affirmative action" and "equality" entail violations of property rights. Even if an employer is overtly racist or sexist, there is no ethical justification for governmental intervention in his business decisions. If someone wants to serve only black people or hire only young women on the basis of their looks, that is his or her perogative and right (even if that action is, itself, actually distasteful and unethical). The function of government is not to ensure virtue but to ensure that no one's rights are violated.

No "right" exists to a job or a product or a service except for those economic goods which one has earned and obtained in a mutually satisfactory, voluntary interaction. Any other course involving the coercive powers of the State threatens not only the freedom of the business operators but, ultimately, the freedom of those who would seek redress of "unfairness" by calling on the State to commit injustices of its own.

its one thing to google something and its another to understand it sport, yes thats the smug part of me even articles of a apocryphal nature.

somehow I knew affirmative action would rear its ugly head, at least you didn't disappoint me sport, We can agree that the world isn' t fair, as mentioned before we don't reside in Utopia and Racism isn't a matter of aesthetic preference, it a matter of bigoted exclusion.........words ...deeds…….actions.
I've never been a fan of affirmative action, never needed it wont endorse it either, I think Affirmative action was useful in the civil rights era and to think we as a society should of evolved? all affirmative action now a day has done is caused more friction among the citizens of our great countries and reminds certain minorities that they are considered second class citizen in the eyes of some people.

Racism covers a very wide range of behavior. What was said and the context are necessary to give you an answer.

thanks for the input!
It started when i messaged a female a couple days ago. I commented on how great she looked in her pictures and asked her if she dated black guys!
her answer was
"ewwwww no"
wtf does that mean?

I'm not soft and sensitive...I actually think a bit of racial venting is a good thing .
It's massive "legal" discrimination by my own government that I don't especially care for!