On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:35:16 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>> It is simply pandering to a perception. I neither approve nor
>> disapprove of what a company does to try to increase its market share.
>How about when it preferentially gives work to women that men could do
>equally well?
If more customers are attracted by the scheme, then it is not true to
say that a man could do the job equally well.
>Would, say, offering a *white* driver or a *British* driver be just,
>"What a company does to try to increase its market share"?
In general, I have absolutely no problem with discrimination by a
private individual or company. If a landlady only wants to rent rooms
to single white females she should be permitted to do so. If I know
that a potential customer is more likely to buy from a young white
woman than a middle-aged black man, I'll send the salesperson who has
the greatest chance to make the sale.
Do you believe that strip clubs should be forced to employ ugly
elderly men to perform to the customers if they can dance as well as
the young pretty ladies?
>> It is only when rules that I consider to be completely unnecessary are
>> imposed by the government that I disapprove.
>> I have little doubt that on average there is a greater risk of a male
>> committing a .ual assault than a female. Therefore a woman taxi
>> driver presents less risk to a lone passenger than a man. But what is
>> also true is that the risk of being assaulted by *any* taxi driver is
>> very small indeed - sufficiently small that there is no need to take
>> steps to reduce it further.
>Exactly. On a statistical basis, a black male driver could be argued to
>present an even greater risk. Is that a reason not to employ them for
>taxi work?
It is a good reason not to send them on certain jobs if an alternative
is more likely to result in repeat business. And if a private company
does not wish to hire black employees, or white employees, or Jewish
employees etc., I do not personally have any problem with that
*whatever* the reason for the decision, including irrational biggoted
prejudice.
>> OTOH there is a greater risk of a female taxi driver being assaulted
>> (.ually or otherwise) by a passenger than a male driver.
>I simply don't believe that. Do you have any evidence that female taxi
>drivers suffer more attacks than male ones?
No. It seemed intuitive that women would be seen as easier targets
than men. But I may well be wrong and have jumped to an unfounded
conclusion.
--
Cynic
|