> Dana wrote:
>
> BBR=Red White and Blue
>
> says so in the article. Look at that then look at the applicant pool
> then look at who they hired.
Here's what the standard should be: are ALL employees hired under BBR rules?
If the answer is no, then there is no discrimination.
(BTW, why aren't co
BBR=Red White and Blue
says so in the article. Look at that then look at the applicant pool
then look at who they hired. My only assumption is that all of the
women were good-looking.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Dana wrote:
>>
>> sure it is. The heart of their positio
You are making a very strong assumption here on motivation without any
facts.
Do you have facts, or just opinion, on your statement below?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> sure it is. The heart of their position is that African and Arab women
> are incompatible with the the gla
> Dana wrote:
>
> sure it is. The heart of their position is that African and Arab women
> are incompatible with the the glamorous and wholesome image they are
> trying to project. Not.
>
ah so can you share your market analysis from when you were a market
strategy executive for L'oreal?
Or did
and black women can be glamorous...
> Fat people can work at Bally's.
>
> Ugly people can be TV anchors.
>
> Dumb people can work in book stores.
>
> Of course all of that would be silly which is why it's not racism.
>
>
~|
Wan
note: neither of these groups are ethnically defined. IE you can be
black and nature-loving; Hispanic and have dandruff.
>
> Nature's Love: an eco-friendly, all natural, holistic, bio-degradable
> "hair cleanser". This is for dirty hippies who shampoo once a month.
>
> Head & Shoulders: That'd b
It did. Back in the day, people used to say it's not me, some of my
best friends are Negroes. But if I let them eat at my lunch counter
then I will lose my white customers.
And one day they abolished Jim Crow.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Dana wrote:
>>
>> put it this
sure it is. The heart of their position is that African and Arab women
are incompatible with the the glamorous and wholesome image they are
trying to project. Not.
I understand target marketing and this ain't it.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Vivec wrote:
>> That is rac
> JJ wrote:
>
> *the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion,
> restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or
> ethnic origin *
>
> Which is definitely what we have here.
>
If that came from law then we just need to change the law; we either
el
*the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion,
restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or
ethnic origin *
Which is definitely what we have here.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > JJ wrote:
> >
> > Of course it IS a r
> JJ wrote:
>
> Of course it IS a racist policy.
>
> Maybe it shouldn't be illegal, but it CERTAINLY is racist.
>
It's not and here's why:
If two people are candidates for job position, both equally qualified
and both perfectly capable, but one of them is selected solely because
the hiring manag
> Dana wrote:
>
> put it this way -- why would they NOT want to target the sizable
> Moroccan and Algerian consumer pool?
Yeah, but who cares? It's their business and they have a right to
manage their brands any way they want.
Except, I guess, in France where the government dictates to business
Of course it IS a racist policy.
Maybe it shouldn't be illegal, but it CERTAINLY is racist.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> > Vivec wrote:
> > That is racism. That is discrimination, and is the foundation of civil
> rights.
> > It is what the US has fought hard against f
But that's not a discrimination argument, but a "how stupid are you"
business argument.
In today's difficult markets, purposefully rejecting any potential sales is
questionable.
But, note that these were not direct sales (from what I can tell), these
were sales to salon owners, to get them to CA
> Vivec wrote:
> That is racism. That is discrimination, and is the foundation of civil rights.
> It is what the US has fought hard against from the 1960s to now.
>
I'm sorry, but it's just not.
If you're a company, you have a right to represent that brand any way
you like. Sales people, advert
> Dana wrote:
>
> it's shampoo. Usable by any ethnic group.
Yes, but shampoo brands don't. They all have target markets and
market segments.
For example:
Nature's Love: an eco-friendly, all natural, holistic, bio-degradable
"hair cleanser". This is for dirty hippies who shampoo once a month.
put it this way -- why would they NOT want to target the sizable
Moroccan and Algerian consumer pool? The many African women in France
who also buy shampoo? If there is a legitimate reason why not I might
reconsider. And I do not consider a concern that a product used by
minorities might be viewed
it's shampoo. Usable by any ethnic group. If it were hair
straightener, then a plausible need for hair straightener is a
legitimate job requirement. I could not do it for instance. I would be
ridiculous.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> Selling copier paper, definitely n
Selling copier paper, definitely not.
Selling clothing, probably not.
Selling cosmetics and hair care products, some of which are targeted
specifically to very small populations, often broadly falling along racial
lines, might make sense.
Of course, as with all stereotypes, reality often falls o
how about:
line1: hot nordic-type French chick
line2: hot black French chick
line3: hot Moroccan French chick
Asking for specific body shapes or sizes is a legitimate job
requirement for a model or a "hostess." Asking for specific skin
colors is not.
My .02
Dana
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:5
That isn't the issue at all.
We are talking about the cab Company saying they do not hire muslims.
We are talking about the cab company saying they do not hire whites.
That is racism. That is discrimination, and is the foundation of civil rights.
It is what the US has fought hard against from th
> Grant wrote:
>
> Sweet 7lb 8oz baby Geebus. Next thing you know Sam, Robert, Gruss and I will
> all be making smores and singing Kumbaya around a camp fire.
>
But, jeepers, let's think with the market a little here ...
You're at the store and there's 2 booths to buy shampoo:
(1.) 350 lb baldi
Sweet 7lb 8oz baby Geebus. Next thing you know Sam, Robert, Gruss and I will
all be making smores and singing Kumbaya around a camp fire.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> Yup. I agree with every bit of that.
>
~~~
> Grant wrote:
> marketing or you sales staff. Look at the marketing for hair relaxers. Is
> that racist to show only blacks in the ads or is it just smart business
> because 99.9% of your clientelle is going to be black? I'm against racism.
> I'm generally against anything that ends in "ism" save
> Vivec wrote:
> I don't buy my clothes from people that look only like me.
> And yes, if BET said that you have to be black to work here, that is
> discrimination as well.
>
> Just as if you as a business say that only Whites can use your toilets.
>
It's not dude, it's just not.
Let's say you s
And I guess I should preface my agreement a little better.
I agree that when it comes to sales/marketing (or movie casting for that
matter) that there should be some leeway when it comes to race. With sales
and marketing the general idea is to try to connect your message with the
customer. Making
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Vivec wrote:
> I don't think you actually read the entire article.
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
I read it. The article is about the majority discriminating against
the minority. Gruss' (baited) examples were about minority
discriminating a
I don't think you actually read the entire article.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
This is about Employment Discrimination.
This is about them stating that only Whites can sell their products,
only Whites can work for them.
I don't buy my clothes from people that look only lik
It is definitely racist.
But should not necessarily be illegal.
It might be smart business (they might be right about their demographics),
or it might be very shortsighted on their part (missing a whole segment of
their possible market), and shortsighted on their part (not realizing the
potentia
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Vivec wrote:
> GrussWhat Is Racism?
I think his point is that it is politically correct to criticize a
racial majority discriminating against a racial minority. It is not
politically correct to criticize a racial minority which discriminates
against a racial
/me writes this date down ...
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
> Good God. Stop the press I _agree_ with you Gruss.
>
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them
Good God. Stop the press I _agree_ with you Gruss.
> I would challenge the law based on freedom of commerce, but in France I'd
lose.
I think you'd probably lose back home too.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with
GrussWhat Is Racism?
2009/6/25 Gruss Gott :
> I don't find that racist in any way and I think the ruling is a
> politically correct travesty. Here's why
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? L
> Vivec wrote:
> It still amazes me that so many people have, or pretend to have, their heads
> in the sand over the realities of raci
>
Disclaimer: the following is a personal but reasoned opinion on what
people consider an emotional topic. If you're distressed by reasoned
opinions that may dis
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article6572173.ece
LOréal, the French cosmetics giant, whose advertising campaigns proclaim
because youre worth it, was found guilty of racial discrimination for
considering black, Arab and Asian women unworthy of
35 matches
Mail list logo
