board77

Is it really that strange? Here's what I'm really asking for: language regarding gender nor race should not enter into the law. The only exception is where there are laws regarding some intrinsic difference, the only one I've been able to think of being reproduction. Otherwise, gender and race should not even exist in the eyes of the law.



ps - if one woman's capabilities often gets judged by her sex and another woman's never do, would you say that the latter is priviledged?

eta - really I'm just objecting to the idea that one person's suffering is another person's gain.

There's a problem I see in this discussion.

There's actual disadvantage... and there's percieved disadvantage.

Recognizing and dealing with actual disadvantage based on race or gender.... is necessary.

Recognizing perceived disadvantage is essential... but not to FIX those disadvantages... but to fix the PERCEPTION.

You say white males have no disadvantages... therefore they have tons of advantages... That is a perception, not a reality.

I am a white male. I have had many disadvantages for that very reason... because I've had to compete with non-white or non-male people who want to do the same things I do. They get preferential treatment because the government is trying to fix a percieved disadvantage for those groups... which results in actual disadvangates for everyone else.

As long as everyone is focused on perceived disadvantages, then the divisions will never go away, because people WANT those perceptions to be there.

Do you think African American's would continue to vote 90% Democrat if they were on a level playing field with everyone else? Who's interests are served if they maintain a perception that "White male republicans" all hate them and want to keep them poor and uneducated?

Why do you think Democrats are for more social programs? They exploit the inherant racism in social programs targeted in minorities to supposedly help them overcome these perceived disadvantages.

If a Black kid from Compton wants to make everything he/she can out of him/herself, he/she just has to work for it. If he/she works his/her guts out through school, he/she will have every opportunity anyone could want... because it's a rare thing, and celebrated. If he/she applies him/herself in college as much as is expected... he/she will easily get the job he/she wants because anything else, would result in a lawsuit.

So the path to success is there, and available. How is this not a HUGE advantage? Why, then... doesn't everyone in such a "disadvantaged state" do such a thing?

Because they are told, from the moment they are born... that there is no hope. No matter what they do, the "white men" who have ALL the advantages... want to keep them down in the dumps. They can't look to anyone else for help. They need the government to hand them a check because they deserve it, because the "white men" all want to keep them down.

But I suppose, as I'm saying something disagreeable... and talking about race relationships... I must be a racist, right? I mean, that's the oldest trick in the internet argument book... of course... don't like what the other person is saying, call them a racist. No, don't look at the truth of the matter... don't look at reality... just cry racist, and they lose all credibilty...

Well, I say if you want "disadvantaged minorities" to be stuck in their welfare state for the rest of time... that's racist. I say parents teaching their kids that "white men" are the reasons for all their problems... is racist. I say that offering student loans or business loans to women and minorities over white men... is racist.

But in our culture... it's only "bad racism" if it's from white people. Everything else is "reverse racism" which is apparently ok... even though it makes no sense even as a term. It's ok for minorities to hate white people, because white people exploited them... sure that's none of them that are still alive... but it's all about skin color, right? White people are the same today as they were 150 years ago, right? All white people are the same, right? We can say that, right? Obviously It's wrong to say all Black people are the same, or all Hispanic people... but all white males are the same... rich advantaged boys who never have to worry about anything... right?

I look forward to seeing how this post gets pulled apart and pulled out of context and yelled at... it's very fun.

...

I'm going to second js's post. I'm also going to advise you to reread the two posts that I labeled "problematic" yesterday; the relevant language is quoted in my posts though you deleted the originals. It's not a "trick in the Internet argument book" to brand problematic (1) a massive negative generalization about all African-Americans (2) followed by an even worse proclamation that "the black community" apparently doesn't include blacks who care about their children, or do not seek government assistance, or value education (what are those blacks then? Part of the "white community"?)

I'm looking at the truth of the matter, hal. I'm looking at the reality. And the reality is that those statements were problematic.

And I'm afraid I really can't resist picking at this one statement:

Quote:

Because they are told, from the moment they are born... that there is no hope. No matter what they do, the "white men" who have ALL the advantages... want to keep them down in the dumps. They can't look to anyone else for help. They need the government to hand them a check because they deserve it, because the "white men" all want to keep them down.

Go read your latest post. You first announce that YOU have "many disadvantages" while the "Black kid from Compton" has the "HUGE advantage." You want the government to cut YOU a check, suggesting that it is not so much government assistance you are opposed to as "forms of government assistance that don't favor your personal needs or particular life situation." And you have managed to blame in this thread feminism, women, and "the black community" for your problems - for your business issues, for your school funding situation, for your failure to get into your top choice school. All the while, you are railing against people who blame other people for their perceived or actual disadvantages.

Here's a suggestion for you, hal: be the "Black kid from Compton" you describe. Work your guts out, and solve those problems you can solve for yourself. It's a rare enough thing that you'll find it's celebrated. You may also find that "the path to success is there, and available." You'll forgive me if I don't credit the contention that only low-income black kids have a path to success in modern America, while middle-income white men must abandon hope.

Among other things, being a mensch means not casting about for others to blame when you screw up, or when things just don't go your way. You take responsibility for what you've done, or haven't done, but you don't let it become a burdensome load of guilt. You pick yourself up, you dust yourself off, you learn, you move on.

hal, be a mensch. Stop blaming victims for your "victimhood." It's unseemly in an adult.

I'm not blaming anyone. I"m just explaining how things are.

but fuck all that. you guys see the world through some weird liberal fucked up view of the world.

Nothing that I have posted is in any way racist or incorrect.

You want the welfare state to continue? You want poor people to be dependant on the governmetn?

I have FUCKIGN WORKED MY GUTS OUT MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR WHAT? TO BE TOLD THERE AREN'T ANY OPTIONS BECAUSE i DON'T FIT INTO THE PROGRAMS MEANT TO HELP WOMEN AND MINORITIES?

FUCK THAT!

jewelsong wrote:

Hal. I suggest you take a workshop or course in diversity education. So much of what you are saying is based on ignorance and preconceived notions...prejudice, if you will. Pre-judging.

I will not "pull apart" your post. But I will suggest that you educate yourself about what you are assuming and what you are saying.

I'm sorry, this is just blatantly insulting.

I live in downtown Long Beach, CA. Yes, Snoop Dogg lives 8 blocks from me. I am the minority here. I know more about what I'm talking about than anyone here, that much is painfully clear.

It's necessary for me to know these things as I run a business right in the gosh darned middle of a community more than heavily populated by african americans.

So, no, Jewelsong... and no, TP... you are obviously the ones that need further education about this.

Or, you could perpetuate the lies and deceit that cause the problem in the first place.

yov --

Whether gender and race should exist in the eyes of the law is a separate point. You and I probably agree in part and disagree in part on that point. (I do support anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes protections, and both of those are separate, lively debates in their own right; IIRC, you don’t support either.)

On your privilege point, I understand your objection that to the notion that one person’s advantage is another person’s disadvantage. But I just don’t see the notion of privilege that way. Let me try yet again. Let’s say that a parent has two children, a boy and a girl; the parent also has an infinite number of cookies. Both the boy and the girl want a cookie every day. The parent likes the daughter better than the son, because of a preference for female children. So, every afternoon, the girl is given a cookie. The boy never receives a cookie. The parent makes very clear that the girl is receiving the cookie because she is female. The boy and the girl also happen to be best friends. They’re not in competition. The boy doesn’t hate the girl for receiving a cookie. The boy doesn’t want the girl NOT to receive a cookie. The boy doesn’t hate the girl for being a girl, or hate himself for being a boy. The boy doesn’t see the girl’s “fortune” in getting the cookie as his “misfortune,” per se.

It’s just this: The boy wants a cookie. There are infinite cookies. There’s no reason in the world he shouldn’t have one, except that his parent doesn’t like male children. If he was female, he’d receive a cookie; as he is male, he does not. How on earth is the boy viewing life as a competition if he simply observes, “My sister receives a cookie because she is female. I do not receive one because I am male. I only want for us both to receive a cookie so we can enjoy our afternoon snack together as best friends.” In making this observation, it is not that the boy wants to care about gender; it is his parent who has made it relevant by distinguishing on that basis.

As for your question about one woman experiencing discrimination and another woman not: no, I would not say that the woman who is not judged by her sex is “privileged.” I would simply say that she is not subject to discrimination.

hal, it will be unproductive for us to continue this conversation further, in this forum or any other.

that's fine, then remove your posts calling me a racist and we'll be fine.

Quote:

(I do support anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes protections, and both of those are separate, lively debates in their own right; IIRC, you don’t support either.)

Correct.

Quote:

“My sister receives a cookie because she is female. I do not receive one because I am male. I only want for us both to receive a cookie so we can enjoy our afternoon snack together as best friends.”

This is fine. You're misunderstanding me; of course it's perfectly valid and good to point out such factual discriminations and hardships. What I'm saying is that if those are to be pointed out, let's try to do it with language that is less hostile, less antagonistic. The language of that original list, though accurate enough I suppose (I didn't read all of it), feels very accusatory, as if it is "The White Man"'s fault that some blacks still get called the N-word or that "The White Man" somehow gains from that. Neither of those are true - the first because plenty, probably most, white men aren't guilty of causing that and the second because...well, that's self-evident. I mean, whether intended or not, the "white privilege checklist" reads like it might as well be titled "benefits white people get from oppresing blacks", which is pretty unfair.

I have requested that the rangers remove all references to me being racist, or saying racist things, or needing "diversity training."

I started a thread in bikeracks if you'd care to continue discussing it, but I will eventually see all of it removed. I consider it highly defamatory and insulting, not to mention entirely incorrect, showing a sever lack of understanding of culture in the US.

Ah. yov, I understand your point much better now. You are right that such “privilege checklists” tend to have a slightly hostile tone, which is one reason I always hesitate to add them to a discussion, even when they can facilitate discussion. I guess I have two further thoughts on that point:

1. I’m going to continue with the “cookie” analogy for a second. Let’s say that a third-party wants to dialogue with the sister about the fact that she is receiving a cookie every afternoon, while her best friend and brother is not. There are two ways that the third party might start the conversation. First, they might start out, “Your brother isn’t receiving a cookie in the afternoons.” Alternatively, they might start out, “You receive a cookie every afternoon.” Depending on what is at stake - what the “cookie” is - one or the other means of approaching the question might be helpful.

Let’s assume for a second that the issue is underrepresentation of racial minorities as lead characters in Hollywood. That’s not directly the “fault” of most white people in America today. Let’s say that the ideal is to have a variety of movies made, with some white leads, some Hispanic leads, some black leads, some Asian leads, some Native American leads. (No quotas or anything - just all different races cast in leading roles at opportune times.) A white person who hasn’t consciously noticed the absence of leads of different races may inquire, “Why is this an issue?” There are two ways that one might answer the question. First, one might ask the white person to picture an Asian kid growing up (or black or Hispanic) who could literally go their whole childhood seeing only (or predominantly by far) white heroes, heroines, and other lead characters depicted in wide release Hollywood productions - such kids often ask their parents or wonder, “How come none of the good guys look like us?” That is one side of the coin that one might ask the person to appreciate. Similarly, one might ask the white person to appreciate that s/he and his/her children are likely, every single time they go to the movies, to see white heroes, heroines, and other lead characters depicted in wide release Hollywood productions. Odds are that it is so natural that they don’t give a lot of thought to it.

See, this isn’t a problem that the government can or should get involved in. This isn’t about having a legislature or a court forcing anything on anyone. It’s simply about making people aware of a reality and showing them both sides of a coin. Highlighting the side that they themselves experience, and describing the side which they have not experienced. I agree that that is most constructively done with less of an accusatory tone than the “checklists” took.

2. My second thought is that many members of the groups in question ARE frustrated. When you see a disadvantage that you experience, and another group collectively experiencing a parallel...I will call it, “absence of disadvantage,” it IS frustrating. Not because you want to compete against them, but because you want to be equal (i.e. NOT in competition.) And because often, the group experiencing the absence of disadvantage is unaware that anyone else IS experiencing a disadvantage, as it is not part of that group’s reality. And so I would submit that the tone of those checklists is highly understandable even if I agree with you that it is not ultimately constructive.

I see Hal's view as a view that sees 'How it currently is." Hal's pointing out of 'reverse racism' is important because I think it's good that people be aware of it to keep things balanced, and to keep minorities accountable. It's a good question: Why DON'T black kids take advantage of the opportunities that are there for them? It's all psychological reasons/mentalities why they don't.

I see TP's view as a view that sees "How it should be." Eventually, if more and more minorities take advantage of the opportunities available, won't the need for 'special treatment' from the law be unnecessary?

I suppose it's the typical Conservative vs. Liberal. The Conservative doesn't have the desire/capacity to be idealistic, and the Liberal to be practical.

You two are talented, insightful debators(sp?). Polar opposites...so much for all to learn from such two viewpoints.

Ok. So we're more or less on the same page there, tp. I don't see anything I disagree with in that post.


(I'm sure I can find something for us to argue about.....give me a bit. )

hal wrote:

But in our culture... it's only "bad racism" if it's from white people. Everything else is "reverse racism" which is apparently ok... even though it makes no sense even as a term. It's ok for minorities to hate white people, because white people exploited them... sure that's none of them that are still alive... but it's all about skin color, right? White people are the same today as they were 150 years ago, right? All white people are the same, right? We can say that, right? Obviously It's wrong to say all Black people are the same, or all Hispanic people... but all white males are the same... rich advantaged boys who never have to worry about anything... right?

Hal has a point here. People of other color are seemingly allowed to disparage whites all they want with not much backlash, yet the second a white person toes the line or slightly crosses it, you hear about it in the news, they lose their job...it's horrible, disgusting, etc (Don Imus comes to mind). Yet whites can get called a whole sundry of disparaging names and hardly anyone says anything. The double standard is frustrating. It's just as wrong for a black person to be racist against white people, imho.

I was not in the mood for a big debate the other day. I'm still not really in the mood for one now, but I thought I'd offer my thoughts, for what they're worth.

I didn't think my offhand comment would lead to this. I should've taken the time to clarify my remark about feminists. And now I think I may have misused the term entirely. I was referring to what seems to be a popular thing nowadays--male-bashing. While some feminists probably do engage in that, it's obvious that all don't. And I see now that I shouldn't have used such a broad statement. For that, I apologize.

(I still do not consider myself a feminist. I have agreed with--I think--everything yovi has said in this thread. I agreed with much of what hal said, too, but not everything.)

I get annoyed with TV and movies portraying men as idiots who wouldn't be able to survive the day if it weren't for the women in their lives. I get irked when women get on a kick about how awful they have life and how wonderful men have it. That is what I didn't want hal to think I was engaging in, but I'm afraid I engaged in stereotyping--blanketing all feminists with the idea that they would engage in this male-bashing behavior.

So, again, sorry for not choosing my words more carefully and for falling into the lazy path of stereotyping.


Lali

And now I'm doubleposting!

...

and now I will call for a hearing, if you will not remove your comments immediately.

...