Why it's cool to be an extrovert: A rant | CharlotteBehappy

You know what, I'm fed up of this whole 'it's cool to be socially awkward' thing. Why do people act like it's so much better to be an introvert and to be socially awkward? Why does EVERYONE label themselves as  socially awkward? Do people even know what social anxiety is?

Well anyway. I am an extrovert and I think being an extrovert is fine. Extrovert's have feelings too, they are not bad people because they like to go outside and socialize with people and because they engage in conversations and speak their thoughts. Maybe that's okay? I think so.

Maybe it's okay to be a bit bossy and to be a leader. Surely it's good thing to interact in conversations and to get people to all socialize together.

It's also okay to be a bit of both.

And of course it's fine to be an introvert. I just feel that is seems to be so cool to not be able to socialize as easily and being an extrovert is frowned upon and if you're an extrovert you can't be awkward and uncomfortable. Or for someone reason your feelings don't matter as much.
Things like this annoy me

I think everyone likes to stay in every once in a while. You know we need time to rest no matter what personality type you are.
Extroverts are not necessarily 'attention-seekers'. They just don't mind having attention and people looking at them. If you're a self-conscience person, I doubt you'll want people looking at you whether you're ex/in.

Why do people assume that extroverts and introverts just don't understand eachother, and just don't get along? I think they do pretty well. I am friends with both types and there seems to be no problem.

So yes. Just a little rant.

Is positive discrimination good? | CharlotteBehappy

So, I had to write an essay and since I feel like this essay went completely unappreciated I've decided to post it here. It's not perfect but it was fun to research.

Is Positive Discrimination Good?

This is my report and my findings based on some research I did on positive discrimination. I have two case studies, some statistics from the internet and some statistics from a questionnaire I carried out. Positive discrimination, also known as affirmative action, refers to ‘race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin’ in areas in ‘employment, education and business’. I will be looking at this in the employment area mainly. In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism on the grounds of sex, race and ethnicity is generally illegal in both education and employment except in the Northern Ireland police force.

The first case study was about positive discrimination in the police force. Many white males had missed out on a job because ethnic minorities and females were hired to stamp out racial prejudice against the police. ‘Dr Timothy Brain’s force confessed it had acted unlawfully by dashing the mens’ dreams because of their sex and skin colour’. Positive discrimination seems more apparent towards women and nonwhite males. Generally, people are not positively discriminated against for their age or sexual preference. This quote backs up that point.
‘The force was under pressure to meet a Government target of ethnic minority recruits making up seven per cent of force strength by 2009. At the time, they made up only 1.6%, forcing senior commanders to take desperate - and illegal - measures.’ This shows us that the police already employed many white males and it was in fact the government that pressured them to hire those of ethnic minorities and women and that it was not done of their own accord. This also tells us that there seems to be a problem with the image of the police, that some could consider discriminatory. ‘All force should strive as representative as possible of the community they serve, but positive discrimination is not the way.’ This approach shows us that the police desperately wanted to change the fact that they hired little ethnic minorities and women, and wanted to change the view people had on the police, but they did not think positive discrimination was the way to go about it.
‘Every one of the 129 female and ethnic minority candidate who applied was accepted, along with 63 white males who escaped the illegal cull’ The fact that it was every single person who applied that was an ethnic minority or female was hired goes to show that they didn’t put much thought into who they were hiring and just hired based on their nationality and gender. This is positive discrimination in it’s finest, and it seems there was no reason for the police force to even interview the candidates as they seemed to be set on just hiring them based on nationality/gender. ‘We were trying to advance diversity in the force and we thought at the time that this was a lawful, positive action’. This is an example of hiring people to make you (the police force) look better than hiring people so they do not think you’re being discriminatory.
In this article, it is plain to see that Positive Discrimination is morally wrong, and should not be done. This answers my question simply, by saying it should not be done, and there is a reason that it is illegal.
My second case study was about positive discrimination in the liberal democrat party. The first line of the article states: ‘Conference has rejected a motion calling for a least one black or minority ethnic member to be included on shortlists when a Lib Dem MP resigns’. Straight away we can see the view on positive discrimination is that it is wrong. However there were mixed opinions from members of the Lib Dem party. Some said things along the lines of ‘It is absolutely fundamental to the kind of liberal, diverse party that we should be and that bluntly we are not’, ‘we are a parliamentary party that is unrepresentative of modern Britain and that must change’, ‘We must be radical today to ensure we reflect modern Britain. Progress will not come by itself. Out complete absence of black and Asian MPs, MEPs and members of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments is completely unacceptable in this modern age’, ‘Wishful thinking has failed to deliver on diversity... Diversity is the elephant in the room’, When we go into the next general election in 2015 we must do so leading the largest, most popular and diverse Liberal Democrat party we ever had’ and finally ‘These measures could very well result in us still having an all-white parliamentary party in five years time’. All these views were very much in favour of positive discrimination and thought that it was important to have a party that had MPs and MEPs from different backgrounds. They seemed to be happy with the idea of positive discrimination as long as it meant their party represented a modern party.
There were some other views including ‘I believe discrimination in all its forms is wrong.I believe there is nothing positive about positive discrimination... We will only ever reach equality when people truthfully say that your ethnic origin doesn’t matter, your gender doesn’t matter, your sexuality doesn’t matter. Fake change, addressing the symptoms not the cause’, and ‘Pursuing discrimination to end discrimination is a perverse idea’, the person who said this was the only non-white person to speak. This speakers say that positive discrimination is not the way forward, and will not permanently solve the problem that the Lib Dems face. They agree that it is wrong, and that it does not prove equality in any shape or form.
After doing some research on the internet I found many statistics on positive discrimination. The police service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants in order to eliminate the service’s perceived bias towards protestants. This shows, once again that the police have a bad reputation of discriminating towards different groups of people, whether it’s religion, race, or gender. And there is a following statistic saying that only 2.8% of Gloucestershire's population was from an ethnic minority and compared to an average of 8.7% across England and Wales only 21 of it’s 1,313 officers were from ethnic minorities, or 1.6%. This shows that the police force are discriminatory nationwide.
The Lib Dems are very unrepresentative in terms of race and gender. They have no black or minority ethnic MPs, MEPs or members of the Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly. Only seven of the party’s 57 MPs are female. Again, in politics there seems to be inequality. As it is possible for the Lib Dems to be in power, this means that the country will be run by mainly white males and this is seen as a problem by many.
The EU has a law saying at least 40% of company directors must be female. This means many women will only become company directors due to this law and not because they are good workers, just so the companies can abide by this law. David Cameron announced that 30% of his cabinet members are female. Whether or not they are female because they have been positively discriminated against, or because they are best for the job is not clear. Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 30% are Malaysian of Chinese descent and 8% are of Indian descent. In 2004, only 7% of all government seats were ethnic chinese (a drop from 30% in 160). 95% of all government contracts are awarded to ethnic Malays. This shows that there is inequality, and no positive discrimination in place.
Since the 1960s in South Africa black wages have gone up by 60% and white wages have gone up by 1%. This shows that positive discrimination has taken place in favour or black people, to make the wages more equal between the two races. In Europe Maltese government has a law that says at least 8% of all employees must be women. This is yet another example of positive discrimination towards women.
I created a survey which I then got ten, 13-14 year old girls to answer. This is not going to give me an idea of what everyone or different age and gender groups thought, but it should be able to give me an idea of what people of this age group and gender thought. I asked the following closed questions: ‘Do you think it would be fair if someone employed you based on your: race/age/gender/sexual preference?’ This was to show if people thought positive discrimination varied between categories. I also asked ‘If you were hired based purely on your race etc how would you feel/act?’ This was to give an idea of what people would think if they themselves were positively discriminated against. I asked ‘Do you think it is fair to NOT hire someone based on race etc?’ This was to get a view from the side of someone who was not hired because they had the nationality etc of the majority. I finally asked ‘What are your views on the law passed by the EU stating 40% of all company managers must be female?’ This was to get people’s opinions of real life positive discrimination happening right now, not hypothetical.
For the question about race, 80% of people thought that is was wrong to hire someone based on race, only 60% thought it was wrong to hire someone based on sex, 80% thought it was wrong to hire someone based on age, and 70% thought it was wrong to hire someone based on sexual preference. I was shocked by the dip when it came to hiring someone based on sex. This may have had something to do with the fact that all those I interviewed were female. If I was to investigate this further to see if males of the same age thought the same thing and it was in fact what people of that age think rather than people of that gender. For the next question asking about how people would feel or act if they were positively discriminated against many examples were ‘betrayed’, ‘judged’, ‘violated’, ‘annoyed’ and ‘sad’ but there were some more positive reactions like ‘fine’, ‘I’d take the job’ and ‘it doesn’t matter’ showing a variation between opinions.
On the next question asking whether or not is was fair to not hire someone based on race etc 60% said no and said things like ‘unfair’, and ‘not equal’ whereas 40% said yes and one person responded with ‘it’s more equal that way’, showing an exact opposite opinion on someone previously. On the final question 20% said that this law was a good thing, and one person said ‘This means more women will be in charge’,20% were not sure and some comments were ‘The Eu is sexist’ (three others also claim this), ‘It’s bad, it discriminates against women’.
It seems that there are very mixed views depending on what you’re discriminating against but the majority agree that it is wrong and should not be done in most circumstances.
In my opinion I think discrimination in any forms is wrong, agreeing with the Liberal Democrat in my second case study. I feel that positive discrimination is most apparent towards ethnic minorities and women and not towards those who are older or are homosexual or have different sexual preferences to the majority. I think this may be because these people are not being hired at all, and there is full on discrimination. One area I did not look into is which ethnic minority groups were getting hired the most, and for what jobs as there may be less variation in higher paid jobs but that would be a different hypothesis. I also would like to look into people being hired or not hired based on their religions and prejudices surrounding that. I would also like to look at this on a more global level so that it is less UK based. For now I think my statistics and case studies and questionnaires show that positive discrimination is, arguably, wrong.