Reverse Discrimination

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2013 10:15:39 GMT -5 Yoyti said:

Jun 22, 2013 9:55:19 GMT -5 Komori said:

Mmmp, now you done it.

Done what?

Sexism IS as big a problem as it's made out to be. I suggest you read a blog called "who needs feminism?".

I'm curious to see what you guys think of my "Kaladoria" philosophy.

[Yoyti]

I should probably clarify that my discussion of "sexism" in this context is restricted to discrimination with regard to employment opportunities and the like. Particularly with regard to women in science and mathematics. If anyone can provide a more succinct term for this, I'd like to here it.

Regarding Kaladoria, the "be yourself with the exception of not hurting other people" is all well and good, and I can't see why anyone should have a problem with it (beyond the specific scenarios which can arise from analyzing pretty much every moral code to an extent), but the problem is that people clearly don't follow it. There is no universally standard moral code which everyone follows.

And, of course, to my mind, any written moral code I'll subscribe to must answer the question of whether it is ethical to commit evil to result in good (stealing to feed a family, executing a mass murderer, and so on). Until that comes along, I'll analyze morality on a case-by-case basis. I can't think of any moral code which can cover all the bases in a satisfactory manner.

Sorry, how did we get to morality? I'll sneak off now. Sorry for the tangent.

[Irritable feminist Guest]

Jun 22, 2013 9:46:19 GMT -5 Yoyti said:

Surprisingly, I actually agree with Stal on this point. Sexism isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be (and I'm not sure, but here the agreement with Stal may end), I think. And the problem isn't getting more women into science and tech fields, but rather, taking the women already there and representing them more fairly. My sister is a tech person. Many (actually, most) of my female acquaintances are tech people. If I take a random sampling of tech people with whom I am acquainted, even slightly, surprisingly, girls outnumber boys. Alright, I'll admit to the possibility of a sampling bias, but the problem isn't that they're not there. 

 

The STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—have always had a woman problem. Men tend to dominate in the tech industry, and for women, the numbers aren’t growing. A 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Commerce found only one in seven engineers is female. Additionally, women have seen no employment growth in STEM jobs since 2000.

No matter where you turn, the stats are grim. Today, women hold only 27 percent of all computer science jobs, and that number isn’t growing. This is unsurprising when we take into account how many women are actually studying computer science in college; less than 20 percent of bachelor’s degrees in computer science go to women, even though female graduates hold 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.

From this Forbes article


So yes, the problem is that they aren't there, and you have a sampling bias. When you are discussing quantifiable things like gender representation in a given field, you don't have to guess. People are actively measuring those things constantly. 

I also recommend checking out the "#1reasonwhy" hashtag on twitter or reading articles about this movement to discuss sexism in the video game industry.

[Yoyti]

Here's another excerpt from the article:

As women continue to make strides in fields like law and medicine, the gap in the tech industry has many wondering exactly what the culprit is. Many chalk up the difference to a lack of female role models in STEM fields to begin with. It’s a vicious cycle, says Jocelyn Goldfein, a director of engineering at Facebook.

“The reason there aren’t more women computer scientists is because there aren’t more women computer scientists,” she told the Associated Press.

This is the point I'm trying to make. I'll concede sampling bias on my part, but the biggest issue to my mind is getting the women who are already in these roles more public recognition. This goes back to the article Nimras linked to.

The psychologists asked female students studying biology, chemistry, and engineering to take a very tough math test. All the students were greeted by a senior math major who wore a T-shirt displaying Einstein's E=mc2 equation. For some volunteers, the math major was male. For others, the math major was female. This tiny tweak made a difference: Women attempted more questions on the tough math test when they were greeted by a female math major rather than a male math major. On psychological tests that measured their unconscious attitudes toward math, the female students showed a stronger self-identification with math when the math major who had greeted them was female. When they were greeted by the male math major, women had significantly higher negative attitudes toward math.

There is a large psychological roadblock and a self-perpetuating cycle, but women being in these fields is not in and of itself being discriminated against. How much of this is out of sexism, and how much of it is fallout from the aforementioned vicious cycle? Am I making sense?

[Thorn]

(But then, I went to art school, so maybe they DO have a cap in regular colleges?)

They have caps at my uni, but they're not always met. ^.^

[Stal]

Jun 22, 2013 5:44:05 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

Jun 21, 2013 23:51:09 GMT -5 Stal said:

But all ideas of protective classes go against a lot of my other values. Giving others a leg up, no matter the reason, I hate it.

Yeah man, why should we have to build ramps and crap for the disabled? They should walk around like everyone else. And those Veterans, getting their own special hospitals? That's some garbage.

Also let's quietly ignore the fact that as a Christian YOU are a protected class.

Touche on the handicap thing. Not what I was aiming for there, but point made.

So let me rephrase in a way that better clarifies what I mean: just because someone happens to have a different skin color, ethnic background, sex, gender, etc, is not a good enough reason to give them more assistance or actively "discriminate" in their favor. (When I use discriminate there, I don't mean it in the "someone else is negatively impacted" way; i.e. a coupon is considered price discrimination and it's obviously a positive thing for the person receiving the "discrimination").

Again, I'm not in favor of minorities facing discrimination, women facing sexism, or any such things. Reprehensible. But legal methods used to discriminate in their favor I still find to be just as morally wrong. And it has nothing to do with feeling that I might get discriminated against (given I've never really faced discrimination).

Also, as was already mentioned, technically everyone is in a "protected class" given the broad definition of it. I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I meant though. There's a difference to being told "You can't discriminate against someone without facing legal consequences" to "you can use race as a deciding factor in college admissions to foster diversity" or some such thing. It's too inconsistent for my tastes.

Jun 22, 2013 9:55:19 GMT -5 Komori said:

See, considering how much worse off a lot of minorities start, giving them a bit of a boost at the minor discomfort of some of the groups at the top, I don't really see that as a problem.

And besides, are there really any affirmative actions used to put women into STEM fields at the expense of men? As I understand it, you can declare whatever major you want in college, it's not like there's an attendance cap per major. (But then, I went to art school, so maybe they DO have a cap in regular colleges?) Trying to get women into STEM fields doesn't even seem like anyone else is being discriminated against.

I'm not aware of anything that "harms" men in those ways, no. I think the confusion on that comes from where I was pointing out that I do not believe trying to get to a 1:1 male-to-female ratio in any field is the best end goal. Mostly because it's based on an underlying assumption I find to be lacking credibility in terms of normal distribution of interests.

Incentivizing women into STEM fields, that's something wholly different than discriminating in favor of (as mentioned above). One is using market forces and equality and another is actively forcing an outcome that is considered desirable. Incentivize away. Also more should be done to incentivize a change in established culture (i.e. sexist men in a male dominated field actively creating an environment that turns women away--that's a bad thing).

[Nimras]

I'm amused how the men are, "sexism isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be" while the women are, "yes, yes it is."

Guess who is on the receiving end of sexism more often.

[Joker]

Jun 22, 2013 21:02:25 GMT -5 Nimras said:

I'm amused how the men are, "sexism isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be" while the women are, "yes, yes it is."

Guess who is on the receiving end of sexism more often.

For what it's worth, I'm female and I've never felt discriminated against due to my gender, ever. So I tend to think of sexism as not a huge deal in modern America. Not saying that my experience is necessarily typical of course!

[Stal]

Jun 22, 2013 21:02:25 GMT -5 Nimras said:

I'm amused how the men are, "sexism isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be" while the women are, "yes, yes it is."

Guess who is on the receiving end of sexism more often.

The ones participating, sure.

But I will say that (again only anecdotal), I have my wide range of female friends that mock claims of sexism and avoid things like being labeled a feminist because they don't like the word associations. So it's not just as if it's only men going "No! Sexism isn't an issue! Now go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich and let us boys figure out how to fix it."

[Nimras]

To be fair, there has been a pretty powerful backlash against the term "feminist" so that even people who are by definition feminist (which is someone who believes that men and women should be treated as equals in society) don't want to be associated with the term. Also, if you're a girl who has a lot of guy friends, there is a lot of pressure to make it known that you're not "like those other girls" and are "one of the guys." Being sexist isn't something that only men do, I've met plenty of women who were sexist against women. Women who make comments about how "disgusting" it is not to shave your legs, for a stupidly common example. Because heavens forbid a woman leave her body in its natural state.

But, I know fully well that if people don't want to believe that such things like sexism/racism still exist, they're simply not going to see it. And nothing with numbers, statistics, or other forms of evidence are ever going to convince them otherwise. And it's a painful enough conversation for me that I'm just going to bow out and let them live in their more perfect world because, frankly, I'm sick of them telling me that my experiences aren't valid because I'm not part of the privileged group.

[M is for Morphine]

Jun 22, 2013 20:09:05 GMT -5 Stal said:

So let me rephrase in a way that better clarifies what I mean: just because someone happens to have a different skin color, ethnic background, sex, gender, etc, is not a good enough reason to give them more assistance or actively "discriminate" in their favor. (When I use discriminate there, I don't mean it in the "someone else is negatively impacted" way; i.e. a coupon is considered price discrimination and it's obviously a positive thing for the person receiving the "discrimination").

Earlier you said:

I just don't buy into the philosophy that giving anyone special treatment or privilege because of arbitrary traits is a worthwhile goal. No matter how minority or majority they are. Those are not my values.

I want to talk about that idea, 'arbitrary'. I want to talk about 'just because'. It would be completely awesome if we lived in a world where all things were equal and skin color didn't have any meaning. However, unfortunately, it still means a lot.

According to a 2011 study from Pew Research Center, whites possess 20 times more wealth than African Americans and 18 times that of Latinos. Whereas the average white family has accumulated $113,149 of wealth, the typical black household has only accumulated $5,677 in wealth.

It means a much greater chance of starting from a place of disadvantage.

It means massive disparity in primary education. It means a massively increased chance to spend your life in prison.

So it's not 'just' the color of their skin. Minorities in this country have been disparaged and oppressed for more generations. What, just because we abolished slavery and Jim Crow, everything is alright and equal now?

A huge factor in this is the ability to buy a home and borrow against it. It can be passed down and assist with the wealth of future generations. We as a society made it a point to make it as hard as possible for African Americans to acquire homes, with Jim Crow laws allowing them to be denied sales, necessary loans, mortgages, etc. The first major legal act against this was the Fair Housing act in 1968. This was still a problem being legally addressed in 1988! So that's one, maybe two generations where African Americans have had an equal chance to build home equity. Whites have had what, 400 years? Hardly equal footing.

You keep saying it's morally wrong to give special treatment to minorities, but I do not understand why. Why is it wrong to want to raise someone up after centuries of holding them down?

Maybe it's trite, but I'll close with this comic:



As for your anecdotes about non-feminist women, as your church makes up a major part of your life, I wonder how hard that skews your social circle to conservative views about gender.

Jun 22, 2013 23:59:47 GMT -5 Nimras said:

But, I know fully well that if people don't want to believe that such things like sexism/racism still exist, they're simply not going to see it. And nothing with numbers, statistics, or other forms of evidence are ever going to convince them otherwise. And it's a painful enough conversation for me that I'm just going to bow out and let them live in their more perfect world because, frankly, I'm sick of them telling me that my experiences aren't valid because I'm not part of the privileged group.

Truth.

[Pacmanite]

I'm generally in favour of affirmative action, but sometimes the application of it is tricky.

Consider the case of police forces wanting to artificially increase the number of women police officers so they can have more of a ~50/50 gender spread. Say they realised that men generally had an "unfair advantage" over women in the selection process, because they did better in tests of physical strength. So, in response, they lower the standards of physical strength required for women. This brings more women into the force but reduces the average strength of police officers who are actively patrolling the city. In times of danger, physically weaker police officers are more likely to pull out their gun. They are also more likely to fire shots, and accidentally injure or kill people they are struggling to restrain. So as a result of lowering standards to increase numbers of women in the force, the community suffers more accidental deaths at the hands of police officers.

So my question is: if the police force's selection process gives men an advantage because their general physical strength is higher, should the police force lower the standards for women at the expense of having a weaker force overall?

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2013 3:09:54 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

Jun 22, 2013 20:09:05 GMT -5 Stal said:

So let me rephrase in a way that better clarifies what I mean: just because someone happens to have a different skin color, ethnic background, sex, gender, etc, is not a good enough reason to give them more assistance or actively "discriminate" in their favor. (When I use discriminate there, I don't mean it in the "someone else is negatively impacted" way; i.e. a coupon is considered price discrimination and it's obviously a positive thing for the person receiving the "discrimination").

Earlier you said:

I just don't buy into the philosophy that giving anyone special treatment or privilege because of arbitrary traits is a worthwhile goal. No matter how minority or majority they are. Those are not my values.

I want to talk about that idea, 'arbitrary'. I want to talk about 'just because'. It would be completely awesome if we lived in a world where all things were equal and skin color didn't have any meaning. However, unfortunately, it still means a lot.

According to a 2011 study from Pew Research Center, whites possess 20 times more wealth than African Americans and 18 times that of Latinos. Whereas the average white family has accumulated $113,149 of wealth, the typical black household has only accumulated $5,677 in wealth.

It means a much greater chance of starting from a place of disadvantage.

It means massive disparity in primary education. It means a massively increased chance to spend your life in prison.

So it's not 'just' the color of their skin. Minorities in this country have been disparaged and oppressed for more generations. What, just because we abolished slavery and Jim Crow, everything is alright and equal now?

A huge factor in this is the ability to buy a home and borrow against it. It can be passed down and assist with the wealth of future generations. We as a society made it a point to make it as hard as possible for African Americans to acquire homes, with Jim Crow laws allowing them to be denied sales, necessary loans, mortgages, etc. The first major legal act against this was the Fair Housing act in 1968. This was still a problem being legally addressed in 1988! So that's one, maybe two generations where African Americans have had an equal chance to build home equity. Whites have had what, 400 years? Hardly equal footing.

You keep saying it's morally wrong to give special treatment to minorities, but I do not understand why. Why is it wrong to want to raise someone up after centuries of holding them down?

Maybe it's trite, but I'll close with this comic:



As for your anecdotes about non-feminist women, as your church makes up a major part of your life, I wonder how hard that skews your social circle to conservative views about gender.

Jun 22, 2013 23:59:47 GMT -5 Nimras said:

But, I know fully well that if people don't want to believe that such things like sexism/racism still exist, they're simply not going to see it. And nothing with numbers, statistics, or other forms of evidence are ever going to convince them otherwise. And it's a painful enough conversation for me that I'm just going to bow out and let them live in their more perfect world because, frankly, I'm sick of them telling me that my experiences aren't valid because I'm not part of the privileged group.

Truth.

Teow, I think you hit the nail on the head. We have to help out minorities because we've pushed them to the point where they can't help themselves.

I feel very unlucky because I am white. I have nothing to proud of when it comes to my heritage. I am probably descended from people who were racist, owned and mistreated African slaves, hated and mistreated Native Americans, and many more horrible things. My parents and our immediate family somehow became VERY anti-racist and anti-discrimination. I have a grandmother who fights for the rights of women and homosexuals. Yet I know just how easily it could be the other way around. I could very easily have had a racist, sexist, homophobic family. And that makes my heart cry.

We need to redeem our race. We need to reach out and help the minorities, otherwise we'll always be the bad guy.

(I spoiler'd this because it's getting into my fantasy life):

SPOILER: Click to show

It is because of this horrible ancestry that I've actually abandoned it. I made up a character named "Queen Cadel" who lived about 2,000 years ago and was the most benevolent, anti-prejudiced person on the planet. Then, I decided I'm descended from her and women who followed her example. I don't even consider myself American because of the shame. I consider myself "Kaladorian", which means from a fantasy land where discriminatory "isms" never existed.

I am not proud to be American.

[M is for Morphine]

Jun 23, 2013 10:14:38 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

I feel very unlucky because I am white. I have nothing to proud of when it comes to my heritage. I am probably descended from people who were racist, owned and mistreated African slaves, hated and mistreated Native Americans, and many more horrible things. My parents and our immediate family somehow became VERY anti-racist and anti-discrimination. I have a grandmother who fights for the rights of women and homosexuals. Yet I know just how easily it could be the other way around. I could very easily have had a racist, sexist, homophobic family. And that makes my heart cry.

Well man, jeez. I wouldn't go that far. There's something to be proud of no matter who you are, I think. And it sounds like your parents and grandparents are pretty cool. You can't beat yourself up for the sins of your ancestors, and I don't think you should. You should just be mindful of the things in your life you are lucky to have and consider how other people might not have them.

And as to America, even though we have further to go we've come a really long way. I mean, I can vote. I couldn't have just 100 years ago. I can dress how I want, own property, speak my mind. The constitution is kinda awesome. There are a lot of countries where women have it really, really badly. There's good and bad no matter where you are, some places more than others. I don't think America is too bad in the grand scheme of things. Room for improvement, for sure.

I know when you get into politics a lot it all kind of adds up and makes you want to give up. I actually really, really hate debating and generally regret having started but follow up out of pure mulishness. But don't let it add up to the point where you only see the bad things.

[Stal]

Jun 23, 2013 3:09:54 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

Jun 22, 2013 20:09:05 GMT -5 Stal said:

So let me rephrase in a way that better clarifies what I mean: just because someone happens to have a different skin color, ethnic background, sex, gender, etc, is not a good enough reason to give them more assistance or actively "discriminate" in their favor. (When I use discriminate there, I don't mean it in the "someone else is negatively impacted" way; i.e. a coupon is considered price discrimination and it's obviously a positive thing for the person receiving the "discrimination").

Earlier you said:

I just don't buy into the philosophy that giving anyone special treatment or privilege because of arbitrary traits is a worthwhile goal. No matter how minority or majority they are. Those are not my values.

I want to talk about that idea, 'arbitrary'. I want to talk about 'just because'. It would be completely awesome if we lived in a world where all things were equal and skin color didn't have any meaning. However, unfortunately, it still means a lot.

According to a 2011 study from Pew Research Center, whites possess 20 times more wealth than African Americans and 18 times that of Latinos. Whereas the average white family has accumulated $113,149 of wealth, the typical black household has only accumulated $5,677 in wealth.

It means a much greater chance of starting from a place of disadvantage.

It means massive disparity in primary education. It means a massively increased chance to spend your life in prison.

So it's not 'just' the color of their skin. Minorities in this country have been disparaged and oppressed for more generations. What, just because we abolished slavery and Jim Crow, everything is alright and equal now?

A huge factor in this is the ability to buy a home and borrow against it. It can be passed down and assist with the wealth of future generations. We as a society made it a point to make it as hard as possible for African Americans to acquire homes, with Jim Crow laws allowing them to be denied sales, necessary loans, mortgages, etc. The first major legal act against this was the Fair Housing act in 1968. This was still a problem being legally addressed in 1988! So that's one, maybe two generations where African Americans have had an equal chance to build home equity. Whites have had what, 400 years? Hardly equal footing.

You keep saying it's morally wrong to give special treatment to minorities, but I do not understand why. Why is it wrong to want to raise someone up after centuries of holding them down?

Maybe it's trite, but I'll close with this comic:



As for your anecdotes about non-feminist women, as your church makes up a major part of your life, I wonder how hard that skews your social circle to conservative views about gender.

Jun 22, 2013 23:59:47 GMT -5 Nimras said:

But, I know fully well that if people don't want to believe that such things like sexism/racism still exist, they're simply not going to see it. And nothing with numbers, statistics, or other forms of evidence are ever going to convince them otherwise. And it's a painful enough conversation for me that I'm just going to bow out and let them live in their more perfect world because, frankly, I'm sick of them telling me that my experiences aren't valid because I'm not part of the privileged group.

Truth.

Trite, and a bit heavy handed, don't you think?

Actually, let me address the bit about the women and the church. You're right that there is a fair number of them that happen to have more conservative views about women in my church. But surprisingly, that's not the groups I tend to hang out with. I mean there are those I do, but I put a lot less stock in their opinion. (Like one of my friends who is essentially skipping out on college and just waiting around to find a guy to get married to. As much as that's her choice to do so, bugs me to no end that she's throwing away her opportunities)

The ones I was thinking of more were the ones that I got to know outside of my church back drop. On one hand there was a more modern mainstream Christian sort (the kind that distances itself from a lot of traditional teachings, comes out in favor of controversial matters like homosexual marriage, etc), and at the other end of the spectrum a friend of mine who was quite honest and adamant in her desire to just be a housewife (even when going through college and doing well in her classes)... and now, as it were, works in an industry that... well... tools of the trade include webcams and dancing. Those are the two extremes, but I did find that theme in more women than I thought would be possible.

However, if I were considering more of the church people that I'm acquainted with, then yeah, it would skew it significantly. That is a completely fair assessment, and one I'm surprised wasn't raised earlier.

Now back to your question...

I don't deny that racism is still a problem, or that sexism still exists. I've been saying from the start that they do exist and need to be dealt with. (though in the case of sexism, I was saying it is not as bad as it is often made out to be. People treat it like a boogieman that lurks in everything, which is mostly just preposterous. There is a huge difference between saying it's not a problem, and it's not as bad as it is treated. And that the end result is based on a premise I find faulty, but that other issues still needed to be fixed). It's hard to deny that racism still exists given the area that I live in (though side note: I was very pleased with the segment on ABC's What Would You Do? this last Friday night that showcased my city, including a restaurant I love to go to, and the people didn't put up with racist statements or people).

But what does that have to do with me? (wait before scoffing)

I'm not ashamed of being white. I'm not ashamed of my heritage. Irish and Scottish immigrants to America (I'm sure you're versed with history enough to know how they were treated as immigrants, too). A Union cavalry soldier. As far as we've been able to trace, not a hint of slave ownership for my family. What do I have to be ashamed of in my family history? Was it my family oppressing minorities? Taking slaves? No. But even if back in my ancestry, that had been the case, what bearing does that have on me? Their actions were not my responsibility either.

Have I benefited from a system that did oppress minorities? Yes, I did benefit from that for factors I couldn't control. But I have no shame in what I have. What I'm ashamed of is that the system was ever in place to start with.

That's the problem that needs fixing. But there are issues with the assumption that the non-minority white people only ever got to where they are by actively oppressing minorities, as that comic is stating. Has there been systemic issues that has made it harder for minority groups to progress over the years? Yes. And those systemic problems need to be corrected.

But, getting back to the crux of the matter, it should not be by showing preference to someone just because of their skin color. Fighting discrimination with discrimination is something I find distasteful. You ask why it goes against my morals and values? For as long as I can remember, I've hated people that can't be consistent in their values and opinions. That will say one thing for one instance but immediately violate that same principle for another. As a non-race related example, I've got a friend in my church who actively hates things like Harry Potter or anything that has magic in it. But he's also a huge Star Wars fan. I've told him it's really no different at all. He hates dragons because they represent Satan, and I've asked him if he also hates lions because Satan is likened to a lion at one point, too. (and let's not even ask about snakes)

Inconsistencies disgust me.

So when we promote non-discrimination for any reason above, but then actively discriminate in favor of any group, or show preference to anyone based on skin color, heritage, or what have you, that is just as bad as showing preference for the majority. I don't value a person any more or less just because they may happen to have black skin, nor do I value a person more or less because they may have white skin. Programs designed to benefit low income, non-home owning families should be based on the factors that matter. Not skin color.

The more we fight discrimination with discrimination, or fight racism with racism, the longer these issues are going to be systemic to the US.

And although this goes back to anecdotal evidence, I know quite a few successful people from minorities (business contacts, etc). We've had some frank discussions in the past, and while some of them started with a bit of a leg up than others, the ones that had nothing and came from rough backgrounds? They advocate heavily on the importance of personal responsibility, not blaming others for their situation, and doing whatever you have to do to get out of it. There is plenty of success even with the issues that we still have to face and root out. Showing preference to people isn't the solution to that.