board77

...

tolkienpurist wrote:

Do you find the term "gay rights movement" inappropriate because it mentions only gay people and says nothing about straight people?

Yes.

Then I don’t know what to tell you, yov. It seems blatantly obvious to me that a struggle for equality by a particular group (women, gays, etc.) can properly bear the name of that group. But if you believe that the disadvantaged group must always be mindful to mention the privileged group, then we’re simply on two different pages. “Equalism” (whether referring to race, gender, or sexual orientation) obscures the focus on the groups that actually bear the bulk (if not the entirety) of the discrimination. [BTW: although some have tried to use the term 'civil rights movement' to refer to the 'gay rights movement,' that was deemed 'offensive' by others, so at least in that case, a neutral word was attempted.]

hal, when one looks at what a small percentage of the total business universe is women-owned and operated, then the compelling need for government support of female entrepreneurship becomes much more obvious. These numbers (from 1997 - sorry, I couldn’t find the ones updated post-2000 census) are, in my view, stunningly dismal. Although women appear to own 25% of firms (which in itself is half of what it should be), the payroll of female-run businesses is five percent of the total - which says something about how relatively small-scale/revenue-weak those businesses are relative to male-owned/operated businesses. I’m not saying that you, as a white man, should not have access to government assistance; I absolutely think that small business loans should be available to all starting entrepreneurs. But I do believe that this is an area where women need heightened access to federal funds; after all, for much of American history, males have enjoyed 100 percent of those funds for their business endeavors - and the consequence is that the marketplace is still not equally open to women.

...

Well, that particular example is perhaps tangential to this discussion. Or maybe not. But thing is, the word 'rights' has gotten weirdly deluted or something to the point where I literally don't know what people mean by it. Phrases like 'gay rights' or ' woman's rights' are borderline nonsensical to me. The only rights that make sense to me are human rights so it's the only phrase I'm willing to get behind.

ps - I detest affirmative action

As far as I'm concerned, positive discrimination is discrimination nonetheless.

*~Pips~*

My feelings on affirmative action are complicated and have evolved over time.

For most of my life, I was very clear that I opposed it. I found it patronizing and condescending as a minority and as a woman. As a potential recipient of affirmative action, I was quite clear that I didn’t want it; I wanted to be judged by the same standard as everyone else.

I still feel that way. I view myself as having been sufficiently advantaged that I neither need nor wish to receive any “special handouts” from the government, or from the private sector. So interestingly, notwithstanding my last post, if I was to open a business, I would not desire any assistance from the government that was not available to all.

However, over the past few years, I’ve been increasingly struck by the basketball analogy to affirmative action. For those who have not heard it: imagine a basketball game in which Team A plays freely against Team B, where Team B’s hands are handcuffed behind their backs. At halftime, the score is 100-0, surprisingly enough. At that point, both sides switch players so everyone on the court is new. Team A announces that it now supports equality of the teams, and as such, will permit Team B to play the game without wearing handcuffs. Team B applauds the decision, but feels they they should be allowed to shoot some hoops without being opposed by Team A; after all, Team A scored 100 points that way! The new Team A players oppose this vigorously. After all, they say, it’s the OTHER Team A players who handcuffed the Team B players; they weren’t involved in that, so why should they pay the penalty? They contend that allowing Team B unfettered scoring access “discriminates” against them by not giving them equal court time to the new Team B players.

So long as the score remains 100-0 - and is 100-0 not by virtue of any historic Team B failing, but by virtue of Team A’s having previously handcuffed Team B - I find the Team A contention rather hypocritical.

So too I find the contentions of whites and males, particularly white males, when confronted with the reality of a system that seeks to redress - in very, very small part - the systemic advantages that white males built for themselves over the first two hundred years of American history, to the extreme and continued detriment of women and racial minorities. It goes without saying that most white men alive today did not construct that system, just as the second set of Team A players did not create the system that led to the 100-0 score. But, the beneficiaries of the system are whites, men, and particularly white men (and the Team A players who inherited the 100-0 score.)

The more I see of these systems – both government and private sector – the more I feel that any system is inadequate that does not account for the societal effects of hundreds of years of not just discrimination, but wholesale exclusion of women and minorities. Possibly a more extreme hypothetical will illustrate the point. Imagine that one race (let’s call them “W”) enslaves another race (let’s call them “B”) for a couple centuries. Members of W ensure that members of B are kept uneducated and unschooled in the ways of W’s culture. At some point, maybe after a war (“CW”) or something, members of W become enlightened and decide to emancipate members of B. However, in their enlightened and newly discovered emphasis on equality, members of W decree that no “handouts” be given to members of B, who live in crushing, uneducated poverty. After all, any assistance provided on a preferential basis to members of B would be discrimination; equality demands that members of W and B now be treated “exactly equally,” with no regard to the fact that ten years previous, all members of B were the property of members of W and had had NO access to even elementary school education, forget about professional training or business opportunities. Equality also demands that the government ignore any stigma or private prejudices that might, in practical terms, cripple Bs’ ability to succeed on the same terms as Ws’. Members of W protest loudly that any additional funds, training, education, or opportunities provided to members of B mean decreased opportunities for members of W. And that, my friends, just wouldn’t be fair.

The more extreme example, I think, has something to teach us about the fortunately less extreme reality.

The analogy would work if life were indeed a game or a race and someone was trying to maintain a fair score but it is so not. More importantly, perhaps, is that there are not "teams" - or at least that's the intended goal of modern rights movements. All humans are on the same team so I see no difference between denying penis-owning hal a loan versus denying vagina-owning Somebody Else.

As long as we're looking at sports analogies--if the 1919 White Sox were shown to have cheated to win the World Series, should the 2005 Sox be denied the title? No, because there's no possible linkage between the two: nothing the 1919 Sox did could have given the 2005 Sox an advantage. Now, that's obviously an example on the other end of the spectrum from the 100-0 basketball game, where the teams coming on in the second half had clear linkages to the first half.

Somewhere in between, as usual, lies the reality of the situation. It is still enough of a built-in advantage in enough quarters to be a white male that one can say there is a residual benefit from the cultural issues of the past. But one must always be careful to measure shifts in society purely by results. It would be silly, for example, to assume that programs designed to increase female business ownership could only cease when 50% of businesses were female-owned. There are so many hidden assumptions there (do as many women want to own businesses as men? If not, is that a cultural artifact or a more basic behavioral issue, ie, are women more risk-averse cross-culturally? It may not be PC to think so, but it would surprise me if we had a solid answer to that) that it can't be used a reliable measure. OTOH, 5% is pretty damn low.

When the legal, and cultural, and logistical impediments to functioning normally in a society have been removed, you've got equality. The legal part is comparatively easy. Hearts and minds--and assets--take longer in most cases. (It will be instructive to see what things are like when Gen Xers are running things, since they were the first generation to live in a society where most of the issues of civil rights had been legally settled.) That doesn't mean, again, that you have to have equality of results, only equality of REAL opportunity, not just opportunities on paper.

Unfortunately, there is always a problem when it comes to enforcing an idea designed to accomplish something at a societal level on individuals. Thus hal's loan difficulties. White men in general have had (and, as a rule, still have) more access to financing than any other group. That doesn't mean hal does, even though he is both white and male.

Is that clear?

Life is indeed not a “game” or a “race,” and in that sense the analogy is flawed from the start. But not wholly so. These distinctions - gender and race in the current discussion - could have been irrelevant, had the dominant groups (whites and men) not insisted for centuries that they were relevant, and codified that view to make darn sure that no woman and no racial minority could access to the opportunities that they did. In doing so, they created a system in which race and gender become hyper-relevant. If you were not a man, you could not own a business (for instance); until the Married Women’s Property Act, married women could not (with certain very minor exceptions) even own property in their own names (and let’s not get started on the discrimination against those lowliest of mortals, unmarried women).

Having made race and gender hyper-relevant, I submit that the groups that benefitted most from their relevance are now estopped (barred) from denying it. Put differently, if white men had become the most successful demographic (by any objective measure of success) through a combination of hard work and happenstance, I think they would justly protest if affirmative action was used to “level the playing field,” by rewarding demographics who had been less successful through their own fault. However, this is not the case. White men created a system that effectively bound, gagged, and tossed in the closet (sorry, but this is still ToE) every other demographic - and so it seems to me absurd that they should contend that they should continue to reap the benefits of the resulting social order, by belatedly insisting on “equality” (i.e. continued disproportionate access to white men, based on the combined effects to other demographics of classism, racism, and sexism.)

I fear that posts like this will cause me to appear to “hate” white men. To the contrary, I have acknowledged that the white men of today did not create the injustices in the current system, and so I harbor no dislike or ill will towards them. However, I think it would be problematic not to state explicitly that it was their predecessors who created a system that has severely harmed (and continues to harm) other Americans.

ETA Cross posted with Ax (and I disagree with not one word he says.)

Quote:

When the legal, and cultural, and logistical impediments to functioning normally in a society have been removed, you've got equality. The legal part is comparatively easy. Hearts and minds--and assets--take longer in most cases.

This is where my particular politcal views come in to play - the government should be concerned with the legal aspect and leave the rest of it alone. To paraphrase vison from elsewhere, we cannot and should not legistlate compassion.
Also, another of my particular politcal view come in to play - I have a hard time caring about groups - gay/straight, black/white, men/women, immigrant/citizen - and am only at all concerned about human.

...

Rather than getting free shots OR starting over, I'd rather just end the damn game. We are not competing against each other! That's really my biggest issue with affirmative action - it enforces the idea that we're different in a time when we're getting close to realizing we're not.

hal,

Quote:

I disagree that white males have created the society that handcuffs minorities or women.

Absolutely. completely. absurd. contention. Who enslaved African-Americans, hal? Who wrote into the Constitution that blacks counted as three-fifths of a person? Who denied women the right to vote and own property? Who barred both blacks and women from receiving certain degrees or professional licenses? And you know darn well I could list poignant, real, non-exaggerated examples all day, so I won’t take the time.

One sweep of a pen that ends slavery, extends the franchise to women, allows previously second-class citizens theoretical access to some professions does not “start the game over.” It does not rid our society of the egregious wrongs that previous generations of white men perpetrated. It merely opens the door a crack, that’s all. The moment after these momentous changes were enacted into law, life was exactly the same as before - all the players were in their same positions (the same people owned the property, the degrees, the money, the positions of power and influence) - except that the door had moved that one crack open.

Quote:

The society as a whole has done that.

Ah. “The society.” Perhaps the black men in our society enslaved themselves. Perhaps the women have arranged to pay themselves less for the same work. And maybe the two together conspired to deny themselves the right to vote, until white men came along and saved the day. Those pesky backward elements of “society”!

Quote:

Particularly in the case of racial minorities today. They don't want to get rid of the government handouts they've been given the last 50 years? Why work when you can get the cash for free? Who can blame them?

Say what? As a racial minority, I can stop working and get government cash for free? I am damn serious right now: tell me where to sign up. I’ll quit work tomorrow. Unless you can point me to the program that will allow me to do that, don’t make such a ridiculous contention.

Quote:

Why become an american when you can get the same money and benefits and still remain loyal to the country your prefer culturally? This is the biggest problem with the immigration bills being thrown around. They all assume the people here illegally WANT to be americans... do you see them waving american flags???

We were actually having a discussion about feminism, not illegal immigration.

Quote:

Every single handout created, serves to futher build a state of expecting the government to provide handouts. Were there problems with equality for women and minorities... absolutely. And they should be fixed by making it criminal to do anything to anyone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.

Criminal penalties for discrimination? Well, that’s harsher than I’d have suggested, but I can get behind that, I suppose.

Quote:

They should not be fixed by the government handing out things to some and not to others. If more women want to start businesses, they should, and they should have the same opportunities as everyone else. The Government should not create SPECIFIC advantages to try to entice women to start businesses. All that does is create an imbalance, and make things difficult for other people.

All that does is create an imbalance! Which, of course, we don’t have now. We CERTAINLY don’t have an imbalance that grotesquely favors men in the business world, because men have “[made] things difficult for other people.” Definitely not that.

Quote:

I can tell you right now that I've suffered from reverse descrimination throughout my entire life. I didn't get to go to the school I wanted to because of it, and I've had an impossible time getting monetary help from the government for both school and business my entire life. I have never seen one single of the so called advantages there are for white males.

You didn’t get to go the school you wanted because of affirmative action? And how, exactly, do you know that? Did the school inform you that they had turned you down in favor of a less qualified (by the numbers) minority? Did you find statistics informing that a statistically significant number of racial minorities (or women) with scores equivalent to yours were uniformly admitted? Or are you simply assuming that because you were not admitted to the school of your choice and you are a white man, you were rejected due to affirmative action?

I didn’t get to go to the school I wanted (Yale Law School) either. I was in their median range. I’m sure that some minorities (Asians don’t receive minority status for law school) with lower scores than me were admitted. But I can’t say for a fact that I was rejected because of affirmative action (or, put differently, that in the absence of affirmative action, they would have selected me.) And I’m baffled how you can.

By the way: I wasn’t eligible for a red cent of government aid to attend school either (except for Stafford loans, to which you would also be eligible for graduate school). And I’m a woman and an Asian-American. My parents are in the middle of the middle-class. The middle-class (except for its very lowest echelons) is uniformly denied that sort of aid, regardless of race or gender. So don’t make it about your race when it’s not.

Quote:

I've done nothing but work hard for the things I wanted, and all I've asked is to be treated the same as anyone else... but all anyone has ever told me, personally... is that all the opportunities for help were reserved for women and minorities.

I can’t respond to this further without knowing the specific situations you’re referring to.

Quote:

I'm going to have to stop talking about this... it's starting to really piss me off... The basketball analogy is absurd, TP, I'm sorry. The solution is simple. IF team A is winning 100-0... and you change the rules... the game should START OVER. If everyone's on an equal playing field... the last game shouldn't count.

hal, blacks never even received their forty acres and a mule. There was NEVER an equal playing field; the game never, ever started over. “Starting over” in its purest form would mean that whites rescind the economic and social advantages that they gained through the exploitation of other races, beginning with slavery. Are you willing to “start over” on those terms?

Quote:

But we live in a world where it does. Sure, no one alive today was a slave or owned slaves... but we're still obsessed with it. The black community isn't obsessed with its kids growing up educated and motivated, and with any sense of success. It's obsessed with the government providing everythign for it, and if it misses one welfare check, there would be riots that shut down whole cities.

Wow, way to make sweeping statements about “the black community.” Way to assume that black parents today don’t worry about their children growing up educated, motivated, and focused on success. Nice implication that African-Americans are immediately violent if they don’t receive government checks. This entire assessment of African-Americans is so problematic I don’t know where to start.
[edited word]

Quote:

White men aren't responsible for fucking everything up.

Res ipsa loquitur; history largely speaks for itself. To be sure, other races and the opposite sex aren’t, er, white as the driven snow on this. All elements of society, being human and fallible (as yov would say), assist in contributing to society’s problems. But your opening contention - that white men didn’t create a system that has handcuffed racial minorities and women in so many ways - is, and will continue to be, completely, incontestably laughable.

...

...yet another reason affirmative action sucks: it adds fuel to the fire of racial tension.


Let's turn down the emotional tone please. We can have this discussion without it.

halplm wrote:

And yes, I will say that "the black community" cares nothign for its children being educated. They care nothing for their families as a whole. They want the government to keep giving them whatever they want, because their ancestors were slaves 150 years ago. And as long as the government keeps giving it to them, nothing's going to change.

hal, these assertions - made twice - are deeply offensive to me as, at the least, overbroad generalizations that are unfair to so many millions of African-Americans, who DO care that their children are educated, who DO care for their families, and who DO NOT want "whatever they want" from the government only because of slavery. Your statements are highly problematic, and I am disappointed to hear them from you.

Your refusal to admit to even the slightest vestige of white privilege or male privilege is also disappointing, although less so (and less surprising). You seem to genuinely believe that your race and gender have ONLY been a liability to you, never an asset - but I suppose it is always easier not to notice the situations where you are exempt from discrimination because of your gender or skin color.

...

...

Yes, hal's statements about blacks is absurd. I'd like to attribute that to something other than racism but I don't know how to.

On the other comments, I don't think, techincally, anybody's race or gender is an advantage or an asset. It's that some's race or gender is a liability. You don't really get free stuff just for being white/male. But you might lose stuff for being black/female. But that difference might just be semantic.


Interesting note as an accountant in my company. We are forced by law to work for DBEs - iirc, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. This mostly means woman-owned companies, apparently. Apparently, we usually work at a loss for these DBEs but we are forced to do so by the gov. The presidant of our company is an Egyptian male - I don't think he was even born here. Yet his company (and therefore his employees) are being forced to essentially do charity work in the name of...um, equality or something. (I'll restrain myself from using what I see as the real name for "forced charity".) Can anybody see equality or justice in this scenario?