As anyone who grows up in a society that values whiteness above all else, I’ve internalized many harmful and toxic things that I try to get rid of and overcome, yes.
But somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant, so no.
Er, you are aware that many, many countries buy USA arms and equipment, yes?
No, my wording does not imply that. Many sexual assault laws until (shamefully) recently limited rape to forcible sexual intercourse (as in, only penis-in-vagina) with a woman by a man who was not her husband. This meant that men could not be victims, that women could not be raped by their husbands, and that forced oral sex was not sexual assault. Feminists attempted (and largely succeeded) in having these laws replaced with neutral ones that included spousal rape, male victims, etc.
Male victims are indeed terribly underserved by our current culture. Men are shamed for speaking out even worse than women are (and believe me, women are shamed for speaking out). If by a man, they feel their masculinity has been impugned. If by a woman, “WTF you mean you didn’t want free sex? What are you gay??”
Any feminist worth her salt would agree that male victims of sexual abuse need to be treated better by society, as do female victims.
At no point have we ever talked about bringing the privileged down. This is all about raising the oppressed and marginalized up.
No, thanks. I know the data, I’ve seen the data, it backs up my arguments. I’m not going to waste time looking for it just to please someone.
Unless you’re calling me a liar, which I hope you aren’t.
Ah, my apologies. Yeah, it gets a bit unclear where replies are going when comments get this far down…
No, I just follow leading figures in anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-sexual minority activism and understand their beliefs well enough to know that the only people who think they’re advocating for the downfall of the straight white christian man are in fact straight white christian men who don’t know what they’re talking about.
His statement: “Most groups, etc.”
Personal knowledge: Leading figures in these movements do not seek this.
Logical conclusion: If the leading/prominent figures do not seek this, it is highly unlikely that “most,” i.e. a majority of the movement would follow. Ergo, false.
If he said “some” it would be impossible to disprove because probably sure there are some radicals that do seek that. But he claimed it was the majority, which is a blatantly absurd notion.
Also, Scalzi is right. This isn’t some damn conspiracy theory; that women make something like 80% of what a man makes for the same work is well established by gov’t statistics. That non-whites have disproportionately higher unemployment is well established by statistics.
Claiming that WELL YOU DIDN’T PROVE THIS is an attempt to derail and waste everyone’s time.
I am saying that we already live in that society, a society that values whiteness and maleness above all else. And we must be actively conscious in combating it.
To pull back one of your responses from another thread, is it good that we’ve passed laws that say “you can’t refuse to hire someone by race”? Yes. Does that fix the problem?
Because here’s the problem: We as humans tend to not be aware of our own internal biases, and as such tend to be very poor at correcting for them. When we think we’re being fair, we’re just as often not (another study showed that people in an evenly mixed-gender group felt that boys and girls were being called on/contributing equally when it was something like 30% girls contributing; when girls were contributing at 50% it was perceived as being overwhelmingly/disproportionally female).
So yes, I’m sure that you, the hypothetical business owner, don’t have anything against black people. You don’t mind them living in your neighborhood or buying your products. But when a resume with the name “Laquisha” crosses your desk, maybe you mentally associate it with ignorance or being uneducated, or have a moment where you think “Gee, black women are really loud and don’t seem to mesh well with groups, I better not.”
There are any number of reasons that your own, unknown personal biases could impact your hiring, and you pass Laquisha’s resume into the “no consideration” pile without a second thought (I mean, you’ve got a lot to look at, you can’t spend too much time on every one). After all, this “Courtney” girl seems perfectly qualified too.
If you profess to believe we’re in a meritocracy when leadership across virtually every industry and realm of politics is dominated by white people, men and particularly white men – disproportionately to the actual gender/race makeup of the places they come from – then logically, what you are saying is that white people, men and particularly white men are just better at everything than nonwhites and non-men. I mean, we live in a meritocracy right, and they’re all the leaders, so they must all have been the right people for the job. I, on the other hand, would suggest that it isn’t nearly as much of a meritocracy as you think it is.
It’s also saying that there aren’t any qualified nonwhites or non-men, that you looked and looked but just couldn’t find anyone qualified to join your team.
There is value in diversity. More importantly, there is value in taking stands against inequality. If you want to somehow take “gender/race has innate value” from “we need to be more proactive in fighting racism and sexism,” be my guest.
If you had enough time to write them, then you could’ve, too.
That you somehow get that from my position is flabbergasting.
The problem is that meritocracies are rarely that, and end up perpetuating inequality through personal biases and the false presumption of equal opportunity.
I really don’t feel like engaging in this topic anymore. Congrats, you get the last word.
Congratulations, you’re perpetuating the problem then.
You are correct that he brought it up, I misremembered and apologize.
Yes, I was referring to “we” as in, people like me, as in, cisgender white men. I’m not heterosexual, but then again, you wouldn’t know it looking at me so.
If I were to claim that 2 and 2 were four or that splitting an atom in a chain reaction results in a massive release of energy, would you need me to cite that too? I’m sorry, I’m not going to waste time looking up specific citations for things that are obvious.
If you really don’t see any problems with financial, political and commercial leadership being disproportionately one gender and race compared to the rest of the country – or even the world – then I guess there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Later.
In the context of, say, how we grade schoolwork/tests. Imagine that qualifications were done in the same way. Each of the three workers would be “A” workers with only minute differences between them.
Welp. Guess we’re done here.
OK, so we recognize they exist. “Wow, that really sucks. Too bad for you, eh?”
Your logic is completely twisted (From what I can tell). Does making laws against murder and theft legally legitimize them?
Actually, more diverse groups do perform more efficiently and productively than homogenous ones.
And I believe you’re wholly off-base there. But even beyond beliefs, let’s just logic it up. When it comes to inequality, we literally have two options:
-Recognize them and try to fix them
-Pretend they don’t exist.
You already said the second won’t do anything, so that leaves the first.
Were my claims inaccurate or incorrect? No. I had seen the studies, I knew of them, and I knew my arguments were grounded in fact.
Correcting them is not perpetuating them. It is recognizing they exist and making corrections as we try to also tackle the underlying problems that result in these inequalities.
For the sake of discussion: If you already have three white men in your group and your options are a 95% white man, 93% black man and 94% black woman, you would hire another white man, then?
And you believe you can get rid of inequalities by ignoring them and hoping they go away?
Because I have a lot of wrong to correct and the time in the day is limited :P
Using rape as an example when it’s irrelevant tends to get the topic off-topic pretty quickly, yes.
Please, do go back to theft vs piracy.
Yes, you are.
Why is this so hard? Why is it so hard to realize, “Wow, the comparison I’ve been making is actually kind of gross and offensive, I’ll go choose literally any one of the hundreds of non-theft crimes that exist to make it”?
Seen it repeated more recently, but that took me literally ten seconds of Google fu.
Edit: Here’s another, from 2012. http://imdiversity.com/villages/career/does-your-name-keep-you-from-getting-hired/
No, I’m really not. You aren’t “taking” something in rape, you’re assaulting someone. Nothing is being stolen, and you are further comparing a person’s body to a commodity. It’s actually pretty disgusting, and in the name of human decency I am requesting that you choose literally any other fucking crime that isn’t sexual assault.
A lack of positive enforcement towards equality is complicitly positive enforcement towards inequality. Your statement that people against inequality should be fighting equal-opportunity policies is absolutely boggling. They are not an inherent inequality, they are active attempts to fix the inherent inequality that already exists in our system.
A black name on a resume is less likely to get a call back than a white name on an identical resume. What is your solution for this? What is your magical bullet for the fact that a white man with a criminal record has an easier time finding a job than a black man without one, or that women with children have harder times finding jobs than single women – while men with children have it easier than their single counterparts?
In a perfect world where everyone was equal, you would be correct. These policies would be unnecessary.
We don’t live in that world. We live in a kind of occasionally crappy world that’s pretty damn unequal. Closing your eyes and wishing it were otherwise doesn’t fix that.
Here’s the problem with “equalist” or “humanist” movements: They fail to identify underlying causes and patterns. In the eyes of an “equalist,” the black man whose resume got passed over for a white ex-con was merely a unique victim of poor fortune or happenstance, rather than an example of systematic equality in society. By blinding yourself to the fact that things are unequal, you blind yourself to any possible remedies.
Uh, employment statistics? Wages earned? The population of Congress compared to the population at large? The percentage of industry leaders, the standards of beauty by which everyone is judged? In your specific example of a Native women, how Native women are at exponentially higher risk of sexual assault compared to virtually any other group in North America (particularly by non-Native men)?
The white male is the default in society. We are the norm and everyone else is considered in some shape or form an alternative.
50% of rapes go unreported to the authorities, fewer ever go to trial, fewer still wind up in convictions and only 3% of rapists will ever see the inside of a jail cell. Between 2-5% of rape accusations are false, no more than any other crime. You have chosen a very poor example to make your point.
Also, laws do not only say that men can only be abusers and women only victims. That is factually incorrect. In fact, feminists were responsible for CHANGING laws that defined rape as limiting the victims to women, among other things.
Your claims have no grounding in reality. Please, tell me how hard straight white men have it as the default population in this society.