Should there be quota or affirmative action for men?

[Ronny]

Women have been enjoying benefits of affirmative action and quotas(unofficial) but forced on employers.Now is the time for affirmative action for men.There are fewer men in colleges and in professional graduate Schools.In some courses percentage of male students is pathetic like for example there are only fifteen percent male students in veterinary Schools.Women form majority in most medical Schools and educationalists predict that same will happen in medical schools in coming years(same percentage of male students as in veterinary courses).In pharmacy women form 70 percent of student body and they are majority even in Engineering (51 percent).In Canada women are in majority in business Schools as well.
Today boys are growing in fatherless single parent families where there is nobody to discipline them or act as role model.Schools are more tuned to the needs of girls and media only encourages girls while guilt is forced on men.Men have no associations or proactive lobbies for them in contrast to women who have any number of magazines,websites,blogs and associations and networking.
Do you agree that in today's hostile environment for men there should be quota for men at least fifty percent in all educational institutions and in jobs?

[storm]

They outlawed Affirmative Action years ago. Get up with the times Man

[CAustin]

No, there shouldn't be affirmative action for anyone.

Who decided that racial, sexual, or any other kind of discrimination can be "the right kind?"

[Common Sense]

No people should be admitted and hired based on their qualifications, not their gender.

When we see numbers of one gender go down what we should do is try to figure out why. If it's simply that women or men demand something less or are less qualified, then nothing should be done - it's simply a result of what people want and what people are skilled at.

If we see that it's a result of discrimination, then we need to address the discrimination, which affirmative action does not do. If with education for example, fewer men are qualified for college due to discrimination in the lower grades, then the answer is to stop the discrimination in those grades, not to put them in colleges that they are not qualified for. It's the same with women in employment.

The way to end discrimination, is to stop discriminating, not to create more discrimination.

~

[Bob]

There is still affirmative action for females- search older questions on similar topics and you will find it is increasing.
One should be aware that top 4 tech firms in last three years have hired female CEOs -Hawlett-Packard,Facebook-Sheryl Sandberg (chief operating officer, IBM-(Virginia Rometti), and now yahoo-marissa mayer.
I do not think it is coincidence.Companies are forced by government and feminist lobby groups controling media to hire female CEOs and they are just doing that.They are now more female managers at middle level than men.
If they can continue with official and unofficial quota for women then there should be quota for men as well in colleges and universities.
(Hope my answer is not deleted by yahoo)

[Josh]

No. There should be no "Affirmative Action" what-so-ever for any reason.

Thankfully a huge number of the requirements forcing businesses to practice AA have been dropped. Unfortunately, they are still in place in government run institutions. In order to get cash from the Federal Government, American Universities still have to put AA policies in place.

Similarly, the contracting rules for government projects dictate that the major contractor must sub-contract to small businesses, and that a certain percentage of the project's funds, at a minimum, must be spent through small sub-contractors which are owned by certain disadvantaged groups. This is why you see so many small military contractors owned by black women, or disabled veterans, these people count as members of two different groups who get preference for work and money, mandated by improperly discriminatory law.

We should not be improperly discriminating more, in order to compensate for past improper discrimination. All that does is improperly discriminate against innocent people who were not the beneficiaries of the past improper discrimination. The answer is to stop improperly discriminating, and give the government less power with which to improperly discriminate.

Now, there are circumstances in which it is entirely proper to discriminate. If two stores are selling the exact same product, and one sells it for less, or I can buy two products for the same price, and one is definitely better, then it is entirely proper to discriminate and buy the less expensive product, or the better quality one. This is what is known as having "discriminating tastes", which is a good thing.

Similarly, if you are hireing a java programmer, it is entirely popper to have a bias toward hiring people who have more experience and training in using Java, and the related bits of architecture that you plan to use.