[throwaeayBan]

Mind providing examples of males having prize when outnumbered (preferably not once but consistently) or where men get headstart (like in marathon I can't remember name of, where women get head start)? Because I will be angry about that too. It kills competition, it kills meritocracy.

[CJefferson]

How does having a women prize kill competition exactly? There is an overall prize for everyone to compete for. A 'best man' prize would, in every chess tournament I'm aware of every happening, always go to the best player anyway. The day a woman wins the top prize, the is the day we could introduce a 'top man' prize.

And why single out the women prize, as opposed to the over 65 or under 13 prizes?

[onion2k]

Positive discrimination is a reaction to negative discrimination. The notion that things would be more equal without the positive discrimination is flat out wrong; all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices. When the negative discrimination goes away then the positive discrimination won't be necessary any more. We live in a more equal world with positive discrimination in favour of minorities than without it.

I like to think of positive discrimination as a cosine wave that cancels out the sine wave of sexism/racism/etc.

If you think positive discrimination is a bad thing then I suggest you work on getting rid of the negative discrimination, and the 'problem' will magically resolve itself.

[kaoD]

> all the positive discrimination is doing is countering the negative prejudices

IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices.

"Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!"

"Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters."

"Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team."

All things I heard.

I'm pretty sure there is discrimination around. I'm just not sure positive discrimination helps at all, or only makes us feel like we're doing something.

On the other hand, female-only tournaments (like in some sports) encourage the underrepresented gender to participate, since they're more likely to succeed and feel like they can achieve something, and then maybe get to the same level as males in the long run.

It's a complex problem, though. Teenage females are, on average, slower when running than their male counterparts, and this won't change no matter how much positive discrimination you throw at it. I feel like a bigot just by saying it but, hey, I think it's true and it's been proven (e.g. soccer USWNT scrimmaged against the U-17 USMNT and was beaten 8-2, purely by physical advantage). Sometimes life itself discriminates and IMHO we have to accept it too. Maybe positive discrimination is the only way to work around it? How are we going to get rid of the biological discrimination, to then then get rid of the positive discrimination? I don't think we can. I think we just have to accept it and normalize it and be fine with each person having different aptitudes and traits.

Unfortunately I don't have any alternative methods to get rid of negative discrimination :( I like to think this is an education issue that will get fixed over generations and, in my eyes, it's indeed slowly getting fixed (unless some event sets the progress back, like it's happened in history multiple times... that's what we'd have to work against.)

I like to think my country (Spain) is pretty progressive on getting rid of discrimination, be it gay, female, racial, etc. I think we've come a long way on getting rid of it, and I think education (e.g. TV shows including gay people) was the only factor that helped. I mention gay people because we're one of the most progressive countries on that regard and, indeed, the problem wasn't solved by positive discrimination but, simply, by normalization.

Change came from heroes setting example, not underdogs in need of help.

[onion2k]

IMHO positive discrimination might only reinforce those prejudices. "Haha, look at those women, they need a head start!" "Damm, women are so weak they need lower standards to join the firefighters." "Women need their own separate tournaments because they couldn't even face the worst male team." All things I heard.

Which is why, as an enlightened and intelligent person, when you hear things like that it's your job to point out that the positive discrimination is only necessary because of the negative attitudes people have towards minority groups. All the remarks you heard are examples of negative, sexist discrimination. We should all be willing to speak out against it, and all work to resolve the issue of inequality. And that includes defending positive discrimination for the good it does.

[kaoD]

Did you read the rest of my comment?

> And that includes defending positive discrimination for the good it does.

Does it? I feel you think that's an axiom. Is it? You didn't argue why, and it's the crux of my comment: if it does good or not. I'm not convinced it does good (or bad), but you seem so convinced I hoped you could answer my comment instead of reinstating how good you think positive discrimination is.

I'll quote myself:

> How are we going to get rid of the biological discrimination, to then then get rid of the positive discrimination? I don't think we can. I think we just have to accept it and normalize it and be fine with each person having different aptitudes and traits.

I invite you to read my comment carefully and reflect on it. IMHO it's not an issue as simple as you seem to think it is. And if it is, please enlighten me (I'm genuinely open to it!)

[ptaipale]

Positive discrimination is not only reaction to negative discrimination. It may also be just plain simple discrimination. Of course people may claim that positive discrimination is always just a reaction, but in reality it may be just sexism or racism.