Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Meaning's Not In The Words

By Signal 11 in Op-Ed
Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:24:58 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

There has been a trend going on for some while - political correctness being the most visible manifestation of it. It has advanced to the point where it has become part of the fabric of society in the United States and other first world countries. The trend is essentially to change the meanings of words, to declare some words as 'okay' and others as 'not okay'. Changing the meanings of words doesn't bother me - it has been happening since language was first invented. What troubles me is the motivation behind these seemingly innocent 'modifications'.


As George Carlin remarked, what was known in the 60's as "shell shock", and I paraphrase him -"you can almost feel the fear from the shells flying by", has today become "post traumatic stress disorder". Why? Scores of other words have fallen by the wayside as 'politically incorrect' - especially any term which denotes race. No longer can you call someone 'black' or a 'nigger' - now we call them African Americans.

Another example: Harassment used to be pronounced 'her-ass-ment'. However, many people now pronounce it 'har-ass-ment'. The reason for this is due to pressure by self-labeled feminists over the fact that the word can be used as part of a joke, namely 'her ass'. Considering that a substantial amount of "sexual harassment" has to do with viewing that particular part of the human anatomy, the feminists decided to change how that word was pronounced... to kill a joke. And this has largely succeeded.

Tangentally, the feminists have also succeeded in having codified into law the only law I am aware of in which what constitutes a crime is determined by the victim. Specifically, sexual harassment - there are no guidelines and if one reads most of the laws on this, you will quickly find that it does indeed depend entirely on the recipient. An innocent remark such as 'nice shoes' could land you in hot water. I could digress for several pages on the horrifying results this has had on the workplace, but I think this single example conveys the flavor of political correctness quite well.

Political correctness, in my opinion, is an attempt by many political interests to practice discrimination in a way that is socially acceptable. A friend of mine once attended 'sensitivity' training as part of his job, which also included a seminar on what sexual harassment was. After a brief while, my friend cornered the presenter on a particular statement, namely that "if you are male, you are sexist." He questioned this, and stated that sexism is not a one-way street and that is can, and is, routinely practiced both ways. He nearly lost his job over that statement. It would seem to me that the people calling themselves feminists have gotten quite a few people practicing discrimination while thinking that they are being right or just.

But it's not just about gender issues - political correctness broadly encompasses anyone who can put themselves in a 'minority' group. Even though "people of color" make up over half of the voting population, they are considered a minority. Women, who weigh in at around 54% of the population are likewise considered a minority. About the only group that can't be considered a minority is the young white male, aged 18-25. Ironically, that segment is about 10% of the total population (my estimate).

Such groups have organized, and political correctness now encompasses a wide variety of topics. Controversial topics regarding this include:

  • Reparations for slavery, which would be funded in the form of higher taxes.
  • "Equal Opportunity" employment, which provides for preferential treatment for non-white, non-males.
  • Sexual harassment legislation, including the "Crimes Against Women" act, which provided greater penalties for any violent crime committed against someone solely on the basis of gender.
  • "Hate crimes" legislation, which provided greater penalties for crimes committed against specific minority groups solely on the basis of them being part of that group.
  • anti-racial profiling legislation, which would provide greater legal protections to certain minority groups.

The most common justification for these and other movements is that it "corrects" the injustices being perpetuated against them by discriminating against others to "even the score". But discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who does it. It seems these days that discrimination is making a vicious comeback. After the successes of the social unrest of the 1960's, we seem to be back on the brink of returning to the pre-civil rights movement era of intolerance and bigotry. Most people are not aware of this.

My experiences with this form of discrimination have been un-encouraging. I feel a strong need to educate people on this, but in most cases, particularily in a work environment, I am met with blank stares to sharp criticisms by my coworkers and managers. Most men I work with are afraid to ask women at work out, while on the flipside I have found many women complaining about how 'up tight' men are and how they feel that they must be the initiators in dating (many of whom paradoxically also believe that the 'sexual discrimination' laws and rules in place are for the best). In society at large, I am placed at a competitive disadvantage - most employers in Minnesota are 'EOE' (Equal Opportunity) - I have personally witnessed people who are less qualified than me in the same position, with the same salary, as me who are there solely on the basis of their gender or race. It seems to me to be, at best, an aberration in the smooth functioning of the capitalistic structures in place in this country and at worst a social paradigm of bigotry and intolerance that would bring tears to the student activists of the 60's. I have witnessed 'blacks' in groups harass 'white' people in groups in plain view of the police, taunt them, even take pokes at them, without fear of reprisal. The police are afraid to act, because their picture might appear in the next high profile race case. In the Twin Cities, the Mall of America will (to me, randomly) host what I have dubbed an 'all black' night, of which I have heard from several people are organized attempts to "scare off" white people. Minnesota is located deep in the midwest and is considered to be much more tolerant (liberal) of racial issues than elsewhere in the country - which makes me wonder how badly off my country really is.

I tend not to trust statistics from sources such as the Census Bureau or most private institutions as I have researched many race and gender statistics and found them to be flawed - the National Organization of Women funded a study on rape and concluded something around 3/4ths of women had been 'raped' by the time they reached the age of 25. Upon examination by a friend of mine, however, it was noted that a woman who took more than 2 aspirin was considered 'raped' if she consented to sex after doing so, as NOW reasoned that she was 'under the influence of drugs'. The Census Bureau (to me) seems to have doctored the statistics on how many 'white' v. 'non-white' people are in the population - they use what seems to me to be an overly-complex formula to determine whether someone is "white" or not, which is purely subjective.

The point of my article though isn't to foist my beliefs on to you, however - but rather to solicit commentary from you. Am I just imagining this, or is a pattern emerging here? How prevalent is this so-called 'reverse-discrimination' and what, if anything, is being done to prevent it? I want to hear feedback from people on a personal level - what do you see happening out there? Have you noticed other trends like this in discriminatory practices?

Your comments are much appreciated.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by Signal 11


Display: Sort:
The Meaning's Not In The Words | 129 comments (107 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Do we live in the same world!? (4.20 / 10) (#1)
by ucblockhead on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 10:16:57 PM EST

Seriously.

Because my experience as a white male is so utterly opposite of that, well, it's not even funny.

You'd think, at thirty-five, I'd have noticed at least on incident of "reverse discrimination" in my personal life, and that of those around me, but I have not. I have, however, seen a depressing number of the plain, old fashion kind happen to those around me.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

It might be helpful... (3.66 / 6) (#2)
by Signal 11 on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 10:27:30 PM EST

It might be helpful to explain what you've been doing with your personal life and where you live. This might have some impact on your perceptions of the world.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (5.00 / 8) (#5)
by ucblockhead on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 10:58:52 PM EST

I live in an area where whites make up less than 50% of the population. You'd think if there were reverse discrimination to be found, it would be there.

Hell, my wife and I visit the People's Republic of Bekerley a fair amount, likely the most politically correct place on earth. You'd think I'd have at least seen it there.

Anyway, as I said, in 17 years as an adult white male, I have not once, not one single time, run into "reverse discrimination". Yet I've seen my wife suffer from sexism from time to time. I've seen nonwhite friends suffer from racism.

And your examples are just crap. Afraid to ask women out!? Jesus fucking christ, it is called "tact" and "politeness" and "learning what 'no' means. I've never had a problem. I suspect that "being afraid to be ask women out for fear of being accused of harassment is either a rationalization of shyness or being in denial over a lack of social skills. If you are polite and tactful, you won't have a problem.

The only sexual harassment case I've been (peripherally) involved in was instigated by a gay man and targeted at his female boss and my female boss.

And that crap about not being able to call a black man black? In my experience, that's pure crap. No one's every given me shit about it. And if you think that being considered a racist bastard because you use words like "nigger" is reverse racism, well, that's pretty fucking clueless.

(By the way, a lot of your article is inaccurate. For instance, it might interest you to know that hate crime laws typically do not talk about specific races, and that in fact I know of specific cases where black men have been successfully prosecuted for hate crimes over crimes committed against white men. The laws are based on intent, not the race of the victim.)
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

You're fortunate... (4.12 / 8) (#8)
by Signal 11 on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 11:28:51 PM EST

Afraid to ask women out!? Jesus fucking christ, it is called "tact" and "politeness" and "learning what 'no' means. I've never had a problem.

I know atleast four people who I all trust empathically to excercise proper "tact" and "politeness" who have all had problems. I was fired once for making 'death threats' (woman complainant), which was actually a discussion about Quake v. Unreal Tournament. the example I used in my article is the second friend. The third was accused of oogling and making derogatory comments during his tenure at a local university - he was teaching a class on how to write resumes at the time. The last friend of mine was suspended from school after questioning the speaker at an all-school assembly on 'sexist comments' and later quit working at a movie store after they wanted him to wear a "Charlie's Angels" t-shirt and would not offer him an alternative (Just reverse the situation and ask what would happen if a woman didn't want to wear the latest Sylvester Stallone movie t-shirt). Those are just some of the examples.

either a rationalization of shyness or being in denial over a lack of social skills.

Making personal attacks on the people in question doesn't bolster whatever position you're trying to take here. Maybe they are shy and lack social skills, but that doesn't mean that asking someone out is any less risky if the woman takes it the wrong way.

And that crap about not being able to call a black man black?

Read a fucking newspaper.

For instance, it might interest you to know that hate crime laws typically do not talk about specific races

Please view the text of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, also known as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245(c)(1). As to your inference that this is not a problem, please view this link, which documents hate crimes and gives a breakdown by state (USA).

The laws are based on intent, not the race of the victim.

Actually, and specifically, the law I cited above is in conflict with this assertion.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Responses (5.00 / 9) (#13)
by ucblockhead on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:18:52 AM EST

Please view the text of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999,

Yes, here it is. Read it. Two things:

  1. No where does it say that hate crimes can only be committed by members of certain races. A black man killing a white man because he is white is equally prosecutable. It is just a lot rarer, which is why there are so few incidents of prosecution under various state laws (The ones I know of were in California).
  2. It wasn't passed. It is not a law. It was a bill that was not passed by the Republican congress. Why on Earth you are using a bill that did not become law to support a contention is beyond me.

Anyway, you might want to have a little look about what the FBI says about hate crimes. in 1995, over 40% of hate crimes were committed by nonwhites. About 15% or so are labelled as "anti-white". So your contention that the government is somehow targetting whites only in hate crime prosecutions is pure and utter crap.

Read a fucking newspaper.

I do. That's how I know that the Hate Crimes act was not passed. But anyway...

Just because some moron on the editorial page says something doesn't make it so. As I said, no one has ever given me shit about using the term "black". Stop listening to morons with agendas and pay attention to life.

Actually, and specifically, the law I cited above is in conflict with this assertion.

Well, since I've already shown that it is not a law, and since the text of the bill in question shows no such conflict, I can only assume that you didn't read it, and didn't really follow it while it was in congress.

As for the experience of your friends and yourself with women, again, I've just never seen anything like that personally. What I have seen is people excusing their own abusive behavior with rationalizations. I've seen a lot of that.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

*sigh* so this is what it's all about? (4.83 / 6) (#43)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 05:39:07 AM EST

It's all about you and your friends not being popular, like everything else? Jesus, man, why does everything have to come down to you and your personal problems?

I know atleast four people who I all trust empathically to excercise proper "tact" and "politeness" who have all [streetlawyer summary service -- acted like dicks and suffered the consequences]

It's all about you, isn't it? The first step toward your growing up is to stop involving the whole world in your personal problems. And get a new set of friends to -- people who shout interruptions in school assemblies and make a point of principle out of a t-shirt are the wrong kind of people to know, and their claims to be "highly intelligent" should not be taken at face value.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Rimshot... (2.25 / 4) (#75)
by Signal 11 on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:37:24 PM EST

It's all about you, isn't it?

Well, yes, I am a Solipst.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

spelling correction (none / 0) (#125)
by streetlawyer on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 03:35:33 AM EST

Well, yes, I am a Solipst.

The correct spelling is "cock".

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

newspaper (4.50 / 2) (#89)
by alprazolam on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:25:06 PM EST

This article from the front page of the Dallas Morning News says "black" three times and african american exactly zero times.

Also the recently passed James Byrd JR Act seems to levy extra penalties to anybody who commits a crime that is motivated by race, sexual preference, etc. It makes no references to minority status, and indeed does seem to say that somebody commiting a crime against a heterosexual merely because they were straight would be punishable under said act. And same for somebody commiting a crime agains a white person because they were white.

[ Parent ]

Bay Area (4.14 / 7) (#9)
by QuantumG on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 11:34:14 PM EST

I have to agree. I was in a bathroom at a bar, washing my hands and started talking to the black guy next to me. I said "werd" twice, as I do in general conversation and I think I even called him "brother" (I was pretty drunk). He was friendly as all and I spoke to him 3 or 4 more times that night (as I did most people in the bar). As for women in the workplace, I have been mighty paranoid. People bring up a co-worker's appearance and I will agree, but generally not bring up the topic myself. Being in the bay area, surely you have noticed the blatant discrimination against mexicans. They serve us food, they clean our floors and when one speaks english we expect them not to know how to answer. It's really weird for me because my supervisor overseas is latin american (I dont know where from) and I've had nothing but respect for her. As such I get weird looks when I stop and talk to the cleaning staff and ask people in KFC how they're going.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Uhm, check your wording ;) (4.66 / 3) (#86)
by Inoshiro on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:51:49 PM EST

"I live in an area where whites make up less than 50% of the population. You'd think if there were reverse discrimination to be found, it would be there."

Wording things like that implies that a black man being racist no a white man is different from a white man being racist to a black man, etc. They're both outright discrimination, no reversing about it. Wrong is wrong.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Descrimination (4.66 / 3) (#20)
by Nyarlathotep on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:19:08 AM EST

Yes, there is some racial and sexual descrimination and I do support moderate affirmative action. Hell, there are lots of stories about well-intentioned people who oppose descrimination intelectually, but will descriminate out of habit/training.

Still, I doubt that descrimination is the primary force holding back women and blacks today (artists are an execption to this rule, see Gorilla Girls). This biggest culprits today include the parenting style of blacks and the values we instill in young girls. Ironically, political correctness is one of the few things really making an effort to (ineffectivly?) fight these cultural factors.

If we are serious about ending the unequal treatment of women and blacks then we need to change how women and blacks are raised. Black parents need to support their children's natrually inquisitive nature and people need to treat their male and female children more alike.

BTW> I do not mention Mexicans since they are not a minority for much longer and all imagrent minorities are eventually "whiteized," i.e. not distinguisable socially or economically from whites.

BTW2> If you want to see real discrimination look at INS. Hell, affirmative action even descriminates against immagrents!

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]
It's about money, not race. (4.00 / 3) (#104)
by cyberformer on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:21:55 PM EST

It isn't parenting styles, or racial discrimination. It's just that black parents (on average) have less money than white parents, so their children are (on average) less likely to go to a good school or college. The cycle repeats itself over several generations, and it's exactly the same for poor whites, Asians, etc.

The obvious solution is to create a society that depends less on inherited wealth, but unfortunately America seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

[ Parent ]

Unlikely (4.50 / 2) (#110)
by Weezul on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 01:35:32 AM EST

I don't think anyone really takes the "they do not have any money" seriously. We have had immagrents with very little money for a very long time (and remember blacks have been here longer). Plus, there is that little IQ test score thing: blacks score lower then white even after controlling for social class, economics, and education, but blacks raised by white parents (and presumably immagrent blacks like Jamacans) score identical to whites. Psychologists currently believe that this is a lasting form of damage caused by slavery (gives you some clude just how evil slavery was).

Presumably, the solution is to provide parenting classes for everyone and make the schools put in that extra effort to keep students interested in learning.

BTW> Clearly, there are a lot of educational catch 22's associated to being poor, so helping people with collage funding is always a good idea too.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
hmm (4.75 / 4) (#22)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:55:46 AM EST

I can't count the number of people who have told me things like "well, normally you'd be a sure shot to get into [insert prestigious university here], but since you're a white male you're at a bit of a disadvantage." And not just "jealous" white people either - a Puerto Rican friend of mine has mentioned how, despite being born in the US, growing up in a middle-class family in circumstances very similar to mine, he for some reason gets preferential treatment as a "hispanic" for no reason other than his ethnicity.

[ Parent ]
technical correction (3.25 / 4) (#64)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:38:50 AM EST

I can't count the number of people who have told me things like "well, normally you'd be a sure shot to get into [insert prestigious university here], but since you're a white male you're at a bit of a disadvantage."

A hearsay report of someone's theory is not an incident of discrimination. It is well to keep this distinction clear.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

If we're going to get technical :) (3.50 / 4) (#65)
by ODiV on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:43:24 AM EST

A hearsay report of someone's theory is not necessarily an incident of discrimination.


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
I think it can go both ways... (4.14 / 7) (#3)
by theboz on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 10:33:35 PM EST

Racism, sexism, and bigotry can come from either side. However, it may be true that the alternative exists too. I never really thought about it, but before I got my job at my current employer, there were no whites working on that team. The manager was black, the team lead was Lebanese, and the rest were a black male, a black female, and a Jordanian male. Even the DBA was a black woman and the system administrator was a black male. Basically, there were no whites involved with this project at all, however the manager hired me before he even met me. My resume couldn't have been that good, and the amount of money I was asking for (while still lower than the average in my field) was higher than some of the people I worked with. Also, I was the only one the manager never got mad at or talked mean to. It wasn't just my work ethic, because two others that I worked with worked just as hard as I did. I think it might have been because I was white, and the manager didn't want to look bad if he had hired a team without any whites on it.

If this is true and I'm not just paranoid about it, I think it balances things out since I once didn't get a job because they were looking for a minority high school student.

In any case, the real point should be that it's all a bunch of crap, there's no real difference in people and I wish all of these rules would go away, and people would not be treated differently. It should be just as acceptable for me to say that a woman has nice shoes as it is for her to complain about my wrinkly t-shirt.

Stuff.

Under a traditional description... (4.20 / 5) (#39)
by ti dave on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:47:46 AM EST

Based upon 3 racial categories,
there were 2 Caucasians working there.

The Lebanese man, and the Jordanian man.

What's debateable is, how did they perceive themselves?

I have a Middle-Eastern heritage, but it's not readily apparent. During the Gulf War, I was exposed to many slurs against Arabs. You should've seen the embarassment on the peoples' faces, when I suggested they can the comments.

Cheers,

ti dave
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
War Against Boys (4.33 / 15) (#4)
by ScottBrady on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 10:49:13 PM EST

Young white males have become the new target for discrimination in the US.

The United States has developed this image of girls as being "fragile" and in need of special attention while boys have been morphed into monsters with evil sexual impulses and out of control behavior. Couple that with the stigma of being white--which automatically makes you a racist until you prove otherwise--and you end up with boys that feel society pushing them away from all sides.

I think the book The War Against Boys : How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men presented this dangerous pattern of elevating girls while pushing down boys better than any other work to date.

All you have to do is examine the two sexes as they go through puberty. How many girls know what a period is and why it is a healthy part of life? I would say a sizable percentage. On the flip side, let's examine a boy's "right of passage": ejaculation. "Ahh!! He said the E word!" I bet you felt a lot more squeamish seeing "ejaculation" than "period". Why is that? Because we recognize a girl's right of passage as something special while we shame and demonize a boy's right of passage.

I could go on with more examples such as male circumcision vs. female circumcision and many, many more issues but I'll stop there.

In a nutshell, this bullshit has to end. We need to start recognizing the unique needs of boys. Do you think it's any coincidence that almost every single one of the school shootings that took place over the last decade were committed by white males? I think not. Something is wrong. Very wrong.

--
Scott Brady
"We didn't lie to you... the truth just changed."
YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Effect/Cause (4.33 / 3) (#49)
by MicroBerto on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:57:10 AM EST

Do you think it's any coincidence that almost every single one of the school shootings that took place over the last decade were committed by white males? I think not. Something is wrong. Very wrong.
And in the meantime, take a look at how young white males got labelled after these shootings happened! It simply set us back even further, because the media and society tried to treat the effect, not the cause.

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip
[ Parent ]
circumcision? (4.50 / 2) (#57)
by ODiV on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 10:23:02 AM EST

How would this help your argument at all?

As I understand it, male and female circumcision are very different things.

The female circumcision is much more sexually devestating (ie: total). I don't actually know if the male is sexually negative or not. I've heard that it does decrease the sensation of sex a little, but that was by no means from a formal study.

And also, the amount of male circumcision has been declining lately, not climing. So what were you going to say?


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
Female Circumcision (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by catseye on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:49:56 PM EST

The media and some others have taken to calling the complete removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood (as is done in some North African countries) as "female circumcision". This is not really female circumcision, but a clitorectomy.

There actually is a true female circumcision procedure -- the clitoral hood is cut back to provide better access to the clitoris. This can help women who have sexual dysfunction due to an overly large (or too well-attached) hood.



[ Parent ]
ah... (4.00 / 2) (#76)
by ODiV on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:49:29 PM EST

Thanks for the clear up. I've never heard the removal of the clitoral and clitoral hood as anything other than female circumcision. I also never heard any other definition of female circumcision.

I still don't understand what it has to do with his argument though.


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
er. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by ODiV on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:50:45 PM EST

that's clitoris and clitoral hood... but you knew that.


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
why am I replying to this old article? (4.00 / 1) (#129)
by streetlawyer on Tue Jul 24, 2001 at 07:32:26 AM EST

It's not that illegitimate to refer to clitoridectomy as "female circumcision", as it has the same religious and traditional role as male circumcision in the societies which practice it. It's a matter of word choice; whether you think that the ritual aspect or the medical is the most important characteristic.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
uh... (4.50 / 2) (#97)
by delmoi on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:08:56 PM EST

I could go on with more examples such as male circumcision vs. female circumcision and many,

Do you even know what female circumcision entales? It's the removal of the clitoris, generaly followed by sewing up the vagina untill marage. This is almost always done in non-clinical conditions. It removes much of the ablity of a woman to enjoy sex, and is done so that girls will not have premarital sex, or adultery (since it isn't as much fun) and that sort of thing.

Male circumcision, on the other hand, is simply the removal of some useless forskin, and has no negative effect on the guy.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Useless? (4.33 / 3) (#100)
by CrayDrygu on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:25:40 PM EST

"Male circumcision, on the other hand, is simply the removal of some useless forskin, and has no negative effect on the guy."

Okay...I hate to start this again, because I've done it so many times, and it's starting to get boring for me. There's some part of me that just won't let this slide, though.

The foreskin is not useless. Briefly, it protects the glans ("head") from outside elements, provides a lot of extra nerve endings used in sex, aids a little bit in the mechanics of sex, and more trivially, aids in masturbation.

If you don't believe that it protects the head, well, I want you to try something. I'm serious about this, I want you to try it. First, get your penis out of your pants. Hard or not, doesn't matter. Now lick your finger, get it good and wet, real slick. Then, rub the finger against the top side of the head of your penis. It probably won't turn you on very much, but I bet it won't bother you either.

When I do that (and I wasn't circumcised), it hurts! The skin on my glans is extremely sensitive, because it hasn't been subjected to years of rubbing against rough cotton.

So yeah, okay, it's not essential -- you can still take a leak and have sex without a foreskin -- and it's not as devestating as your typical female circumcision. However, it's a far cry from useless.

[ Parent ]

another thing (4.50 / 2) (#98)
by delmoi on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:10:25 PM EST

Do you think it's any coincidence that almost every single one of the school shootings that took place over the last decade were committed by white males?

God, what a red-herring. There are plenty school shootings in inner cities. Its just that no one cares.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
I think I could share your disapproval of... (3.71 / 7) (#10)
by elenchos on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 11:36:14 PM EST

...sensitivity training -- in a way.

If you have an employee who has disrupted the workplace to the point that you are thinking of sending him to seneitivity training, it is probably just as well to fire him, rather than waste any money trying to teach him that it is not OK for him to use words like "nigger," or show him how to ask a co-worker out on a date without giving anyone grounds for a lawsuit.

A grown man that socially blockheaded is not going to be helped by some weeklong seminar. He needs to be sent back home to his mother so she can fininsh raising him.

The Constitution was written by Tristan Tzara.
All men are created equal under Dada.
The drug czar makes sure everyone gets enough.
--Poetry

Sensitivity Training.... (4.87 / 8) (#54)
by Elkor on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:55:08 AM EST

I attended ST once for work. We watched several video clips and were then asked by the HR manager to identify the sexually harassing activities that went one. From a supervisor asking a worker out in exchange for better hours to a coworker fox whistling at a woman it was pretty easy to figure out what was going on.

However, the part that annoyed me (and several others in the room) was the last video that showed a provacatively dressed woman (short leather shirt, low cut blouse, 4" heels, etc, etc) walk through a warehouse, smiling at a guy who made a compliment, and ask a guy to help because "she needed a big strong man" to help her. The guy becaome noticibly flustered and almost dropped the box he was carrying. After this, the HR manager stated that nothing harassing had gone on because of the way the woman was dressed and behaved.

It took about 5 seconds for someone to pipe up "Umm, what about the GUY being harassed?"

The vacant look on his face as he tried to digest this comment clinched it.

Never mind that anyone walking through an industrial warehouse wearing 5" heels & leather mini-skirt should be reprimanded for dress code and safety violations.

Anyway, I guess my point is that ST is pretty much a waste of time. Most "harassing" comments are made when you don't think about what you are saying. No half hour video and QA is going to change that to any appreciable extent.

Regards,
Elkor
"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
That's *exactly* my point about adulthood. (2.75 / 4) (#93)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 05:33:06 PM EST

No grown man would be let himself seen as visibly agitated merely because an attractive (in his perception) woman was provacatively (in his perception) dressed. The grown-up world is filled with people who might seem overly stimulating to a particular person: because they are so beautiful, or so ugly, because they have no legs, because they smell funny... there are as many possibilities as there are individuals. Adults don't display a reaction to any of them, though children often can't help themselves.

So in answer to a little boy who wants to blame women for his inability to maintain a professional bearing in the presence of someone whose appearance is just too much for him, all I have to say is: deal with it.

A little boy who can't deal with it is a liability to any company, and I'd lose the jerk in a heartbeat.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Double standard? (4.50 / 6) (#116)
by Ludwig on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 08:41:20 AM EST

Note that the example from the training film included coquettish behaviour, not just a provocative outfit. While I agree with you about maturity being a desirable prerequisite for employment, I wonder if you'd be so quick to tell a woman to "deal with it" when she freaks out over similar flirty behaviour from a man? (I might, but that's why I don't work in a corporate environment...)

[ Parent ]
You can wonder all you want. (3.40 / 5) (#119)
by elenchos on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 04:43:41 PM EST

Where exactly are you finding a double standard? Is it in my words somewhere? Where? Spare me the innuendo.

You're saying that because she smiled at him in response to a complement, and asked for his help, she was being coquettish? That's all it takes? You are using an adjective lifted from a freakin' Jane Austin novel to criticize a woman for smiling and asking a man for help? Please.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Take it easy! (5.00 / 3) (#121)
by Ludwig on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 05:46:12 AM EST

I'm not accusing you of anything.
It wasn't innuendo, I honestly wondered if you would apply the same standard if the genders were reversed. I didn't even see the training film in question -- all I have to go on is Elkor's description. "I need a big strong man to help me" sounds flirty to me. If you can tell that guy to "just deal with it" then you should be able to tell a woman the same thing when someone compliments her legs or hairdo or something. But see how long you keep your job after you try that.

btw, Merriam-Webster's first known instance of "coquette" is 1611, which predates Jane Austin [sic] by a few centuries.

[ Parent ]

Well, we have to guess... (3.33 / 3) (#122)
by elenchos on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 06:21:48 AM EST

...about the film. Perhaps it was a little flirty. But you have to ask the question "How was the 'target' made to feel by the supposed harassment?" If his problem is that she's attractive and he is distracted, he needs do get over it. If she literally wanted help because he was strong, there is nothing there. If she were asking him to do something frivolous for an ulterior motive, that is harassing. If he is put in a no-win situation, that is harassing. It would be exactly the same if the situations were reversed. Usually it involoves men asking women to do something that results in an undignified postiton.

Now compliments about anybody's body parts are almost always out of the question. Clothes and haristyles change from day to day, and by acknowledging them, you are showing a reasonable level of interest in other people. But the shape, size, and composition of body parts is presumed to be immutable and out of anyone's control, and therefore off the table. It is simply not within the bounds of professionalism, and incidnetally remarking (in any way) on anyone's body parts has never been condsidered polite. This is one of the reasons that sexual harassment should not be a difficult thing to avoid: harassment is nearly identical with traditionally understood rudeness, which is something any real conservative should have no problem understanting.

And this is why complaints that sexual harassment policies are unfair to men are disengenuous.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Suprises.... (4.50 / 2) (#126)
by Elkor on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 08:54:54 AM EST

Let's say you were working in a warehouse or on your car, completely wrapped up in your work. You hear something behind you and turn around to find a 6' tall rabbit standing behind you.

You don't think you might be a little startled?

How about a naked woman?

The company president?

A police officer?

The point is that if you are confronted with something that you aren't expecting, it can affect your behavior. For some people that is a beautiful woman paying attention to them when they aren't expecting it.

"Real" men can handle many things. They don't have to handle everything.

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
Being surprised... (3.60 / 5) (#127)
by elenchos on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 08:32:27 PM EST

...does not mean you were sexually harassed, which was the original issue. If you turn around and see a person with a terrible phyisical deformity, you might fail to conceal your surprise. That is understandable, and we all occasionally fail to behave as we wish we would, but it is still your failure to control yourself, and not the fault of the person who's looks you are so carried away by. And it certainly isn's sexual harassment. It could become sexual harassment if you start acting like Jerry Lewis every time you see a woman you think is pretty.

This example is kind of screwed up, because it is perfectly OK to have a reaction to someone who is dressed in an unsafe or otherwise unauthorized way in an industrial setting like a warehouse. Hopefully you would find that to be an unusual sight. The important thing, however, is that there is just no basis to call it sexual harassment, and I question the sincerity and the motives of those who try to make it into a case of sexual harassment.

"Oh, like you never thought about killing your mom, ya big hypocrites." It was at that moment that I realized how small the New German Cinema community re
[ Parent ]

less qualified people... (4.62 / 8) (#11)
by poltroon on Thu Jul 05, 2001 at 11:36:31 PM EST

I have personally witnessed people who are less qualified than me in the same position, with the same salary, as me who are there solely on the basis of their gender or race.
Do all the people of your own race/gender who hold the same position as you also hold exactly the same qualifications as you? If not, how do you explain that some of them are either more or less qualified than you? Why were the minorities that you've identified as underqualified hired? Is there some sort of quota system going on in your workplace?

Hmm, I don't know your exact situation, but in my experience sometimes less experienced people are hired because they show some potential, and the disparity between them and the other people in similar positions closes pretty quickly. I've felt somewhat disgruntled before when people with less education/experience than me were hired into similar positions (they were white males, btw), but now I'm the newbie in a different workplace, and sometimes I feel underqualified, but I'm gaining ground quickly (it's a much nicer feeling than sitting around in a job that you're overqualified for). It seems to me like salaries aren't always strictly fair. That's why most companies don't disclose them to everyone. If you're assertive and demand a certain amount, sometimes you get it, but if you don't ask for it, or (threaten to) switch jobs, they're usually not going to offer it to you.

Employment-HOWTO (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by Signal 11 on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:33:56 AM EST

less experienced people are hired because they show some potential

No. They're hired because they can be paid less. Employers aren't altruistic in thinking someone 'shows potential'... either they have the creds on their resume or they don't.

Is there some sort of quota system going on in your workplace?

Yes, EOE. That's why the bar is 'lowered' for certain groups.




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Huh? (4.66 / 3) (#62)
by ODiV on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:21:07 AM EST

So the less experienced people are hired because they can be paid less. But they're getting paid the same amount as you... ???

I have personally witnessed people who are less qualified than me in the same position, with the same salary, as me who are there solely on the basis of their gender or race.

No. They're hired because they can be paid less.


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
Follow the logic. (4.00 / 2) (#84)
by Inoshiro on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:43:24 PM EST

"So the less experienced people are hired because they can be paid less." yes, in a pure capitalism system that's what would happen...

"But they're getting paid the same amount as you... ???" because the (outside capitalism influence of the) EOE demands that 'this' percentage working be of this skin pigmentation.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
You know damn well... (3.50 / 4) (#90)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:31:07 PM EST

...the EOE rules do not demand any such percentage. It's just that for obtuse clods the only way they can figure out how to not get in trouble is to set up a quota, because they are so out of it they can't even tell if they themselves are discrininating.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Case law. (4.00 / 3) (#94)
by Signal 11 on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 06:10:26 PM EST

Case law has cited such percentages... employers are afraid to be sued b/c they don't meet "quota". Whether it's a real law or a case law... hell, even if it's not, the mere threat of lawsuit is sufficient to create such an atmosphere.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]
And the mere belief is enough to set you off. (3.50 / 4) (#95)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 06:58:23 PM EST

Do actual facts ever enter in to this? You don't seem to care about the difference between a law and a bill, or between a widely-held misconception and an established fact. You bandy about some statistics that agree with you, yet you harden into skepticism when you don't like a statistic.

"The mere threat of a lawsuit" is not in fact a strong enough force to dictate the behavior of a company. Particularly since in this case the scenario you paint simply opens them up for more lawsuits from the other direction. If companies were so craven in the face of the threat of suits, persecuting white men would scare them just as much.

Fortuantely, over here in the calm, rational world, we have a way out of this dilemma. We just make fair decisions and stand fast when threatened with frivolous suits. The fact is that companies brave such suits every day and haven't caved in at all. If they had, as you claim, then wouldn't the demographics of corporate America match this supposed quota? How come 12% of all workers, from CEOs down, are not black? How come 51% (or 54% if you like) of the workforce, top to bottom, is not female? If they are trying to meet this supposed quota, they are doing a piss poor job of it. Yet they are not all being sued to bankruptcy for missing the quota. A few are in court, but what about the rest? Not enough greedy lawyers? Hardly.

Your claim simply doesn't hang together because it is inconsistent with the facts.

Instead of gunning for minorities, you should have just told you story honestly without trying to pick on those you see as an easy target. Your getting fired for talking about a game tournament is an extraordianry thing; you could have told that story without turining it into a pissing contest. Was the company that fired you really that stupid? What could make them overreact so much? It cries out for explanation. So fill in the deatils.

But if you are going to try to make it into a mass persecution of white men, you are going to have to marshal quite a bit of evidence to overcome the impression made by the vastly different personal experience of so many of us. But with the way you've distorted reality just in this discussion alone, it's going to be difficult to put any faith in your version of events. I mean, if the things you said around work were anything like your posts here, it isn't really hard to see why they got rid of you.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Lawsuit... (none / 0) (#123)
by Signal 11 on Sun Jul 08, 2001 at 08:05:58 PM EST

"The mere threat of a lawsuit" is not in fact a strong enough force to dictate the behavior of a company.

The DMCA has been notorious for this - check out the safe harbor provisions of it. For a specific example, go here.

We just make fair decisions and stand fast when threatened with frivolous suits.

Ask anyone prosecuted by the Church of Scientology if that ever worked for them....

Your claim simply doesn't hang together because it is inconsistent with the facts.

Facts presented. Counter-argument deflated. Truth revealed. Troll vanquished.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Who pushes DMCA lawsuits? (4.00 / 5) (#128)
by elenchos on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 08:54:49 PM EST

When you have corporations like Microsoft or Disney or AOL-Time-whatever and their massive war chests going after people, then you're talkng some real intimidation. Although even at that, there seems to be a quite a large number of individuals, sites and companies that are not at all intimidated. Grue still has her DeCSS code up, there are Scientology documents all over the web, including my own dumb web site at Gonzaga, and the kind of freedoms that RMS seeks seem to be doing pretty well (so far) in spite of these threats. What about the recent MasterCard vs. Attrition.org fiacso, or CNNDN? It seems to me that if you are in the right, you can stand your ground and win. If you have some money, as most corporations do, you have even less excuse not to stand and fight, which is exactly why this claim that companies are intimidated into persecuting white men is false.

I'm awarading myself 1000 points for your trying to squirm away by changing the subject: first you were saying that minorities have this power to push corportions into persecuting white males by threatening the corporations with lawsuits, but lacking evidence, you start talking about corporations threatening lawsuits over IP to push around those who don't have the money to fight back. Yet even that doesn't really hold up.

Facts presented. Counter-argument deflated. Truth revealed. Troll vanquished

What?

"Oh, like you never thought about killing your mom, ya big hypocrites." It was at that moment that I realized how small the New German Cinema community re
[ Parent ]

What the hell?! (3.50 / 2) (#113)
by Inoshiro on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 06:09:43 AM EST

" You know damn well..."

No, I don't motherfucking know because I live in Canada (and thus am unaware of US labour laws). Why don't you explain to me what you mean instead of being condescending? Fuck.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
I gave you credit for knowing... (3.50 / 4) (#114)
by elenchos on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 06:20:31 AM EST

...what you were talking about. If you don't know anything about US labor law, then WTF are you doing tossing out unverified opinions about the EOE? I figured you knew just as well as the Republican propagandists that there are no percentages, and were simply perpetuating that same old myth for the same self-serving reasons that Signal 11 is. Don't blame me if you end up looking foolish.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Blah :p (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by Inoshiro on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 07:56:28 PM EST

From the source material (the story, the comments), I gathered the EOE was some sort of equal opprotunity thing.

Which makes it logical to say `"But they're getting paid the same amount as you... ???" because the (outside capitalism influence of the) EOE demands that 'this' percentage working be of this skin pigmentation.` -- based on what I knew.

But rather than refute the point with more background knowledge so I could form a better opinion, you just assumed and condesecended because I had disagreed with you.

And when I come down on you for coming down on me, you claim I'm just reacting because I "look bad." Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn -- it's a website! I live in a different country entirely, so I'm totally hidden away from this crap. I'm glad I don't have to live in the Police State of America :p



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
who said anything about... (4.66 / 3) (#112)
by poltroon on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 04:44:32 AM EST

altruism? If somebody doesn't have real work experience, obviously the employer hires based on potential, given education, related unpaid experience, etc. Someone right out of school may show a tremendous amount of potential to succeed in a company even though they have never worked for one.

Anyway, you dodged my question about your non-minority coworkers. Are they all exactly like you? Do you embody the "bar" for your "group".

[ Parent ]

behold conservative corectness (3.11 / 9) (#14)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:22:29 AM EST

oh no. not these pesky femi-nazi liberals and their political correctness again! behold conservative correctness (tm). Things that are conservatively correct: homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogynism, bigotry, bible-thumping (as opposed to religion or christianity, with which i do not have a problem), flag-waving, gun-toting When someone attacks these as social evils and proposes even a voluntary solution to cure them (suggesting better replacement words, or barring boy scouts from public funding (not allowing them to hold rallys in public schools)), as a true conservative (or a libertarian) you must defend the freedom of speech. Yet when it comes to insult conservatively correct items (pro-gay advertisement on busses for instance, or conservativelly-incorrect abstract/modern art, or pornography, or abortion, or separation of church and state, or affirmative action, flag-burning, or the ACLU) you must speak of our children, our morals, our values, our religion. Again, my same old rant: if you resist censorship, please resists all forms, and resist the censorship of what you oppose first. And also don't find yourself the unique guardian of freedom of speech, there's already ACLU and it does the better job then all these "first ammendment/anti P.C." Libertarians and conservatives.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
ACLU is a rather mixed bag (4.00 / 4) (#24)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:00:22 AM EST

And also don't find yourself the unique guardian of freedom of speech, there's already ACLU and it does the better job then all these "first ammendment/anti P.C." Libertarians and conservatives.

While I agree with some of what the ACLU is doing, they're far more a left-wing lobbyist/pressure group than a free speech lobbyist/presusre group. They line up nearly 100% on every issue with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which is a bit suspicious to me. If you want a group that truly defends free speech without caving in to other special-interest groups, support the EFF instead.

[ Parent ]

eff vs. aclu vs. left vs. right (4.50 / 2) (#27)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:30:33 AM EST

actually there's a lot of libertarians in ACLU as well. eff is great as well, but eff is mainly concerned with electronic expression, ACLU goes far beyond that. plus a lot of electronic issues fall beyond free speech, and into ideas such as crypto-rights and privacy. and you can check positions of ACLU vs. vote patterns (there's actually a part on the ACLU website which allows you to view how different senators/reps have voted, and what ACLU's position was), you'll notice they are opposed to anti-privacy government regulation (w/ republicans) and to aspects campaign finance reform (w/ republicans). they also defended the KKK, who despite being scum off the earth, still has a right to free speech.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
libertarianism (4.33 / 3) (#30)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:47:52 AM EST

actually there's a lot of libertarians in ACLU as well.

There's some, but they don't seem to be the ones setting the policy. The ACLU has repeatedly supported such drastically un-libertarian things as affirmative action, and has not consistently opposed "hate crimes" legislation (though they seem more wavering on that issue).

But yeah, your point is taken that on some issues they do break from the Democratic mainstream; those issues seem to be a minority though.

[ Parent ]

yeah (4.50 / 4) (#31)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:02:48 AM EST

perhaps. since libertarians are not a majority, and being a libertarian can mean 20 different things, from a chomsky-type left-leaning anarchist, to a Randroid pseudo-philosopher, to trhurler, to streetlawyer, to sovereign citizens and militia members etc.. you'll also note that ACLU supports drug legalization, something neither republicans nor democrats have the guts to support. another such positions is death penalty, which neither party wishes to abolish. you'll also note that being a member of aclu does not mean support for all of the aclu's points. myself? political agnostic with liberal leanings (i believe in social contract over natural rights, and in i accept marx's criticism of capitalism, but i don't agree with the ways he propose of treating them), with chomsky-like foreign policy views, and a strong support for human rights and civil liberties (aclu-style). actually human rights and civil liberties are central to my and stand in front of all my other views.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
and a more detailed rebuttal (4.16 / 6) (#16)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:32:09 AM EST

n*ger is the word used by illiterate southerners to call blacks or by desperate blacks to call themselves (which is their business), it is deeply hurtfull to blacks to be called that, and when that word is being used it's generally being used for the expressed purpose of hurting them, and not as a part of normal free speech. black is a fine term, and i haven't seen it being outlawed or persected, just it's a bit incomplete, as majority of african-americans do have a bit of white blood in them, and black can also be used to refer to australian aborigenesse, blacks from africa, blacks from west indies, all these are different and unique groups.

post-trauamatic stress syndrome is not a more politically correct, but a more scientifically correct term, since it's not limited to the miliatary. you'll find it in cases of automobile accidents as well. shell shock also took a meaning beyond it's literal meaning, and is often used figuratively, thus it's no longer an acurate term to use, people won't know wtf you're talking about. post traumatic stress syndrome will reffer you to the actual medical condition (which is actually a real nervous condition, and not just being scared. see some ww-I documentaries for examples of what it is, it's a very complex disorder).

and as for being raped, rape consists of having sex without mutual consent. who cares if the woman was tied up and beaten for that purpose, a man was asked to pick up the soap, or a drugged woman was taken advantage off, the principle is still the same: sexual act was performed without informed, mutual consent.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
rebuttal to a rebuttal (4.75 / 4) (#21)
by csbarry on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:51:57 AM EST

I think your response oversimplifies the ambiguity that exists with respect to sex. It's important to note that consent is often mutual during sex and less-than-mutual afterwards.

An example: A kid graduated from my high school a few years ago and went on to a top-three Ivy League college. Smart guy. He was at a party last year at which he got drunk. A girl he met also got drunk. You can anticipate what happened. The next morning, he woke up in the girl's room. Specifically, in her bed. A few minutes later, her boyfriend walked in. She cried rape. Although I don't claim to know all the facts, what I do know is that someone I respect very much is on a leave-of-absence from his school until multiple legal suits against him are resolved (the girl sued for everything under the sun). Regardless of whether he is convicted or not, his life is in shambles. He will probably never return to college. The girl is still going out with her boyfriend. It doesn't make very much sense to me that the word of a single person can be so damning.

I know of two other people who have been accused of rape. They were both acquited. Similar circumstances. I'm sure you know can think of more examples of this. And so, without being too misogynistic about it, I don't think that there very much that is clear-cut or even rational sex about the way that sex is addressed in our society

Also, informed consent is the legal precedent by which cops can breathalize any driver. It doesn't have anything to do with sex or rape. <-- This wasn't a diss.


"Everyone wave your hands around in the air as though there are no reprecussions."
- kenny mayne, sportscenter

"Crime paid for this burrito."
- me
[ Parent ]
consent and rape (4.75 / 4) (#28)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:34:00 AM EST

there's a matter of degree. if the person clearly realized the girl was drunk, he should not have taken advantage. and for informed consent, i'm sorry, but i haven't been pulled over while drunk and am not familiar with drunk driving. by informed consent i meant mutual agreement, with each party fully competent to understand the consequence (i.e. no one is drunk, mentally retarded or a six-year old). may be that kind of rape should be given a lesser punishment, again depending on the case (that's why there is a judicial system, and that's why i think mandatory punishments are not a good thing).

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
drunken rape/sex (4.83 / 12) (#50)
by thejeff on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:04:34 AM EST

there's a matter of degree. if the person clearly realized the girl was drunk, he should not have taken advantage. and for informed consent, i'm sorry, but i haven't been pulled over while drunk and am not familiar with drunk driving. by informed consent i meant mutual agreement, with each party fully competent to understand the consequence (i.e. no one is drunk, mentally retarded or a six-year old). may be that kind of rape should be given a lesser punishment, again depending on the case (that's why there is a judicial system, and that's why i think mandatory punishments are not a good thing).

I've never understood this. He was drunk. She was drunk. They had sex. Thus he raped her. If she is assumed to have not been able to consent because she was drunk, why is he, equally drunk, still considered capable of giving his consent. Hmmm, maybe they raped each other. Saying that men remain capable of making rational decisions while drunk and that women do not is blatantly sexist.
By this definition I've raped everyone I've ever slept with. I'm sure that I've had sex at least once with all my past girlfriends while they were drunk.
thejeff

<disclaimer>This obviously doesn't apply if the girl is passed out or otherwise actually incapable of giving consent. It probably shouldn't apply if the guy is actually plying her with alcohol to get her into bed. Certainly not if he slips her drugs or alcohol without her knowledge.</disclaimer>

[ Parent ]
Responsibility... (5.00 / 8) (#74)
by threshold on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:22:31 PM EST

I don't get why a woman isn't responsible for her actions even if she is drunk. If she hit someone while driving under the influence of alcohol she would still be responsible. Why shouldn't she, or even he, be responsible for the choices they made while drunk. I don't get it.


Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
[ Parent ]
choices (3.50 / 2) (#79)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:07:55 PM EST

see, if she hits someone, the person she hits is not responsible for his actions. a sober man, is repsonsible for the actions, knowing that the woman is intoxicated.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
choices (4.66 / 3) (#81)
by kubalaa on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:30:38 PM EST

Hmm, I'm not sure how to interpret your post but I'll try. You're saying a sober man is responsible for his actions. No debate here.

threshold points out that drunk women are responsible for their actions when driving, but not when having sex. This is the mysterious thing. It shouldn't matter whether the man was drunk or sober; if a woman, knowing she can be indescriminant while drunk, chooses to get drunk, she's responsible.

Note that this is quite different from being physically incapacitated; I don't mean that a man can rape a barely-conscious woman and not be held accountable. Both parties must clearly give consent. I just mean that a drunk consent is no less a consent than a sober one. Obviously the smart choice is not to get so drunk you do things you regret.

[ Parent ]

let's put it this way (4.33 / 3) (#83)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:37:56 PM EST

for driving she knew that she is going to be getting drunk, and should have made provisions not to drive. secondly, there's several degrees of drunk. at one degree you won't be even able to get to the car, and won't be driving anyway, and at that degree you'll be very easy exploited for sex. and there's slightly drunk, where you would not be able to drive (even slightest alcohol can impact driving), but would be able to make a decision on sex. if someone is half-passed out after a load of bacardi, i think that you would see that they're drunk, and having sex with them could easily account to rape. it depends on degree of intoxication.

another point is you had a choice to get drunk, when you caused injury, death, or property damage with your car. the person who suffered made no choices, and thus you're responsible. now if let's say inoshiro is drunk and you have sex with him, knowing that he's intoxicated beyond a reasonable limit, you're making a choice that impacts him. there's difference between someone making a choice and you taking advantage of it, and there's difference between someone making a choice that impacts you. and as a supporter of drug de-criminalization, i believe that using drugs to get sex out of a woman should be rape, and driving drugged should be attempted murder.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
I'm confused... (4.33 / 3) (#101)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 10:44:34 PM EST

... maybe we should try a yes/no question.

Are you admitting the possibility that a woman should be held responsible for her decision and consent to have sex while under X amount of intoxication (where X is beneath some threshold that I'll let you set after your yes/no)?



[ Parent ]

yes (4.00 / 4) (#106)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:35:57 PM EST

i'm no doctor, but there's certain limits below which you're capable of making some forms of decisions. police use those for drunk driving cases, and i guess courts should to.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Cool. Thanks. (4.33 / 3) (#108)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 12:56:33 AM EST

I was pretty much persuaded that such a domain of drunkness must exist from the earlier posts but couldn't tell if you were agreeing to what seemed, to me, like a rather weak claim.

Letting it in as a defense might get a bit hairy, but that is another question altogether.

A straight question and answer on k5. A first, no doubt. :)

later.



[ Parent ]

of course (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by mami on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 10:19:17 AM EST

and so is he.

[ Parent ]
that is (5.00 / 2) (#118)
by mami on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 10:28:01 AM EST

for drinking to the point, where you know you will loose your capability of knowing what you are doing.

Or for not drinking to that point, still being able to exactly know, what you are doing, but pretend you were not (whenever it seems convenient to you to deny any responsibility for your actions afterwards).

B.S. behaviour on both sides and no excuses whatsoever.

[ Parent ]
Drunk != Incapacitated (4.33 / 3) (#102)
by threshold on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:12:53 PM EST

I don't think anyone honestly will agrue that a woman incapcitated is responible for her own actions. But women drunk should be responible for what they do, just as men are! To say otherwise is discrimnation in my mind at least. And in the specific example I replied both parties were drunk. This is unfair, society is not equal and never will be.


Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
[ Parent ]
both drunk (4.33 / 3) (#105)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:34:49 PM EST

if they're both drunk then it's a different deal. but what signal 11 was taking about is when woman was drugged, a quite different story.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Whatever (4.80 / 5) (#96)
by delmoi on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 07:51:46 PM EST

If a man and a woman are drunk, why is the woman 'not responsible' for her actions, but the man is?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
hmm (4.20 / 5) (#23)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 01:57:59 AM EST

n*ger is the word used by illiterate southerners to call blacks or by desperate blacks to call themselves (which is their business), it is deeply hurtfull to blacks to be called that, and when that word is being used it's generally being used for the expressed purpose of hurting them, and not as a part of normal free speech.

I'd say that at least 99% of the times I've heard this term used, it was by a black person. I can count maybe one or two times I've ever heard a white person refer to a black person as a "nigga" or "nigger," but the number of times I've heard a black person do the same is well over several hundred. How can it possibly have as its express purpose hurting black people if it's almost exclusively used by black people?

[ Parent ]

clarification (4.75 / 4) (#26)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:25:50 AM EST

when used by whites or others it's generally being used in a hurtfull manner.. just as nerd or geeks is being used towards in that manner, while we use them to call ourselves such.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
SYNDROME?! (4.00 / 2) (#47)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:26:29 AM EST

What, tell me, does syndrome mean? Don't be touching that dictionary, now.

It doesn't at all imply that anything's wrong. In fact I have something that matches the description of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and I have had it for most of my life, and I'm bloody fine.

Disorder actually (kin'a) implies something's wrong, syndrome does not. I still don't like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, since it, too, is weak. Dysorder would be better (which would actually mean there's something undesireable about it all).

PCisms are used in medicine all the time, and undeniably so. The use of syndrome over disorder is just one (general) example, but there's also the case of "psycheldelic" - it was originally called "psychodelic" but it sounded too nasty.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
disorder vs. syndrome (4.00 / 2) (#91)
by strlen on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:48:55 PM EST

i've never heard the term post traumatic stress disorder, i've heard syndrome, but not disorder. syndrome, i think is simply a repeated medical condition, a disorder could be anything. i guess syndrome is better, more specific term to be used, but i'm not a doctor, so i shouldn't be deciding.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
ring ring (3.27 / 18) (#34)
by dr k on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:38:53 AM EST

Hey, 1989 just called. They want their whiny essay back.

All your harassment are belong to us.
Destroy all trusted users!

Fourteen points. (no, not really) (4.40 / 5) (#37)
by aphrael on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:20:48 AM EST

: Harassment used to be pronounced 'her-ass-ment'. However, many people now pronounce it 'har-ass-ment'.

I think this is an issue of regional dialect, and not of political correctness --- i've *only* ever heard it pronounced the latter way. Asserting that it's a side-effect of political correctness seems to be overreaching to me.

"Hate crimes" legislation, which provided greater penalties for crimes committed against specific minority groups solely on the basis of them being part of that group.

This is a complex issue. The legislation in question is intended to prevent attacks which are *motivated* by minority status --- eg., if my boyfriend and I are travelling in some small town in the middle of nowhere and we get beaten up because the locals are offended by us holding hands, that's a hate crime; similarly, if i go burn a cross in the lawn of some black kid, it's a hate crime --- it's a crime whose goal is not just to hurt the person being hurt, but to intimidate other members of the minority. Such behavior *should* be illegal, and insofar as the intent is to intimidate everyone in the group, not just to hurt the individiual, it should constitute a seperate crime. The problem is that it's really difficult to prove that that is the case --- how do you prove *intent*? --- and while there are cases which are clearly on one side of the line or the other, there is also a vast middle ground which is indeterminate, and anything in that vast middle ground can go either way, which makes for extremely unpredictable and arguably bad law.

anti-racial profiling legislation, which would provide greater legal protections to certain minority groups.

I think you misunderstand the point. The idea here is that it shouldn't be OK for the police to stop everyone who passes through a particular street corner because of their race, absent any other evidence of wrongdoing. This *actually happens*, and there is no justifiable law enforcement reason for it to happen --- it's just prejudice on the part of the individual enforcement officers attaining the level of state policy. As a citizen of this country, I have a right to not be discriminated against by my government or by officers acting under the color of the law; if i'm randomly stopped whenever i wander pass a particular street because white guys never go here and so i must be a troublemaker, i'm being discriminated against --- and it's every bit as wrong when black guys get stopped whenever they walk into a wealthy neighborhood.

I'm particularly perplexed by the inclusion of this item in your list as it seems to imply that you are arguing that opposing racial profiling is discriminatory. since racial profiling strikes me as being inherently discriminatory, your attempt to define opposition to it as being discriminatory strikes me as being somewhat orwellian.

- I have personally witnessed people who are less qualified than me in the same position, with the same salary, as me who are there solely on the basis of their gender or race

How do you know that? Are there no other mitigating factors which may have played a part in the hiring manager's decision making? What i find interesting here is the assumption that race is the card of importance. Maybe that assumption would go away if 'equal opportunity employers' did --- but maybe not; dislike of the 'other' who is taking away 'our' jobs is a common theme in *all* multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies.

The Census Bureau (to me) seems to have doctored the statistics on how many 'white' v. 'non-white' people are in the population - they use what seems to me to be an overly-complex formula to determine whether someone is "white" or not, which is purely subjective.

Well, duh, it *is* subjective. How do you determine if someone is white? There really is no answer other than "do they call themselves white?"

The biggest problem with the census bureau statistics is that 'Hispanic' and 'White' are not exclusive --- eg., you can be both. But there isn't really any way around this, unless you abolish race entirely and go entirely based on ethnic culture (which might not be a bad idea).

Note, too, the inherent problem in your declaration that you don't trust the census bureau's statistics: since everyone else's statistics are likely to suffer from bias based on their political viewpoints (since, aside from the census bureau, only political activist groups with axes to grind collect these statistics), you've basically asserted that you believe *no* statistics --- eg., you believe whatever you want to believe about the racial makeup of the country and nobody's numbers can change that belief. That's a fine declaration, but it is hardly conducive to discussion.

Oh *that*... (3.50 / 4) (#41)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 05:07:44 AM EST

The 'harassment' thing is just a variation between British and American English. When a word is adopted into English, the British tend to be more thorough about Anglicizing it. So for example, the French word garage has the accent moved from the second syllable to the first by the British, since the generally the rule in English (going back to Saxon) is to accent the first syllable. Americans take the same French word and leave the accent where they found it, because we are slovenly louts who don't bother to talk right (but at least don't boil all of our food into a bland greasy pot of I don't know what).

So it is with harassment. From time to time, some Americans decide that British pronuciation is somehow more "right" than Amererican, and so you will hear them say, quite confidently, harassment. Thank god such people don't suddenly take it upon themselves to drive on the left side of the road.

Thus, only a nut with a persecution complex and some serious denial about his inability to get along at work would see a politically correct feminist conspiracy here.

(When is EM coming back? He's better at this than me...)

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

Almost falling over (4.40 / 5) (#44)
by dancingblue on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 07:22:33 AM EST

This article does give the impression of being unbalanced, which detracts from it. It does however raise points which are intriguing. Points that I have thought to be self evident for sometime, yet are none the less, appear not to be to a large majority of the population.

There is discrimination in this world and a need to end it. Discriminating against the origional driscriminators is not the answer though. Either educating them or if education is not possible, preventing them from discrimnating. From what I have heard of the states (never been to america so what i have heard is hearsay), there is some need for legislation. Things like stopping a person of unusal coloured skin for the area, need to be stopped, based purely on their colour. At the same time though it should not prevent police form stopping that person if behaviour is legitimately suspicious.
Sexual discrimination, does happen and needs to be stopped. Legislation on matters like this shouldn't be gender specific and should allow (or at least give your judicial system a guide as to how they should be viewing the cases) normal human interaction (if there is such a thing). I find it sad that asking people out can become an offence. If you like someone, you like them it's hardly harrasment. Unless of course it is made plain that no interest is reciprocated, at which point in time anything vaguely suggestive should stop.

As an aside, is it possible for legislators in the US to indicate the spirirt in which particular legislation is meant? it's a random thought and it might even make things worse, but would someting like a statement of intent accompaning everything that comes into law help? Not legalling binding, or else the entire system of law would become a farce, but it would be nice to know what the politicians are trying to do with each peice of legislation.

Only after... (3.36 / 11) (#45)
by Wah on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 07:24:46 AM EST

...you've been a slave, been denied the right to vote, denied a chance for education, had your dick cut off for looking at another woman, cleaned toilets for a lifetime, had to walk across the street to avoid offending the eyes of the gentry, or any number of abuses that your tormentors have endured; only then can you be a victim of racism and have even the slightest leg to stand on.

What you feel is the backlash against all the horrible, digusting things, that us rich, white, men have done to others for years. Stand strong, practice what you believe, and please STOP BITCHING. (sidenote: I can't use that term around my gf, since she is a human rights lawyer and works hard to help bring people to a country where many of the things I mentioned in the first paragraph don't happen...anymore.)

Language shapes some of our world, but actions do so much more. Make the world the way you want it, don't cry about how tough it is. It's tough all over.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP

I'm a Antarctican-American!! GIVE ME MONEY!!!! (4.28 / 7) (#46)
by sneakcjj on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:07:20 AM EST

Drop this <place nationality here>-American crap. Regardless of color or the race of your parents, if you are born in this country you are an AMERICAN. That's it. Period.

Because my parents are Italian does that mean I'm an Italian-American? I was born in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Discrimination exists today because people have found they can use it to their advantage and profit from it. <sarcasim> No, that can't be true!! You can't make a living on discrimination!! </sarcasim> *couch* Jessie I-had-an-affair-while-blasting-Clinton-for-his Jackson *cough*. Did someone say something?

American? (3.50 / 2) (#73)
by jpm165 on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:49:56 PM EST

What about somebody who was born in South or Latin America? Are they not "American" also? There is not just one "America"

"But then, why should you listen to me? For I know nothing..."
[ Parent ]

Of course (4.33 / 3) (#78)
by Nurgled on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 02:11:09 PM EST

Yes, they are. At what point was this disputed?



[ Parent ]
Jessie Jackson... (3.66 / 3) (#111)
by Ender Ryan on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 02:06:27 AM EST

Oh damn I hate that man. What a jackass. I can't believe anyone listens to that windbag, he doesn't care about anyone but himself, hell, he doesn't even care about his wife. He's been known to start charities where he takes 90+% of the money raised as an administrative fee! I'm not talking about small charities either, I mean charities that raise 10+ million. He relies on the continued separation of blacks and whites to give him position, which is why he's been known to label conservative blacks as "Dark skinned whites".

So, basically, he's a lying SOB who subsidizes his lifestyle by playing it up to blacks who don't know any better.

But WTF can you do? I'm sort of affraid to tell any black person to their face what a jackass Jessie Jackson is, I wouldn't want to offend them and have them think I'm a racist....


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Constricted (4.33 / 3) (#48)
by MicroBerto on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:52:45 AM EST

I hate political correctness a LOT. I just started a summer internship for a fortune 500 corporation, and I'm afraid to do anything here! I was spooke even when loading the BitchX web page because of the big logo that reads a big Bitch on it! :-)

I'm sure I won't get in trouble for something like that, but it's not worth it to mess around too much because this company is far too cool to lose out on.

I wouldn't DARE asking a girl out from here while at work. I don't have time to get shit about it.

Any time where I can't act naturally due to flaws of society, I get very unnerved. Oh well, this job is too good to lose :)

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip

Too Good? (4.00 / 2) (#51)
by Elkor on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:20:33 AM EST

What about the job makes it too good to lose? Why do you value the job over your own self esteem or self comfort? By your own admission you don't feel you can act naturally or comfortably in that environment.

What do you get out of it that makes it worthwhile?

I understand that it is only a summer internship, which means you don't have to put up with it for long. And it will probably provide you with some good experience, if for no other reason than to let you think about whether you want to work in a location like that.

So, if you could elaborate on your comments, I think it would be useful to us and yourself.

WHY do you like your job so much?

Regards,
Elkor
"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
everything but this (4.00 / 3) (#52)
by MicroBerto on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:27:32 AM EST

This job makes twice as much money as all of my friends - it's putting me through school. It's pretty easy, and my coworkers and supervisors are great!

I'm pretty sure that I could get away with doing sexist stuff to a point. But I'm not even going to CHANCE it. i don't blame it on the company - I blame it on society. The company's doing what they have to do. I don't hear about sexism here at all, but I did sign the waiver stating that I know the policy, so if push comes to shove, I don't stand a chance.

So to sum it up, it's not the job, it's not the company, it's not the supervisors. It's the society that has forced the job/company/supervisors to create some restrictions that I dare not mess with.

But now that I think of it, my behavior is no different than when I worked at a BP gas station at 15 years old. Just gotta turn it up when working, that's all.

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip
[ Parent ]

If this is you, we can blame you for the laws. (4.00 / 3) (#82)
by Inoshiro on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:34:02 PM EST

Signal 11 was complaining about how the sexism laws restrict legitimate dating and talking between co-workers. That's an important point, because it indicates that the cure might be worse than the disease.

Tehn you say "I'm pretty sure that I could get away with doing sexist stuff to a point. But I'm not even going to CHANCE it." showing to me thta there are sexists fucks in the world, self-admitted, who would do things ... if they could get away with it.

If you put a wallet on the ground, a moral person will return it, an immoral person will keep it. You seem to have put yourself squarly in group 2. Thanks for being bad enough te ruin it for the rest of us.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
yikes (4.50 / 4) (#87)
by MicroBerto on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:13:47 PM EST

Wow.

I totally understand this reaction, because I worded myself awfully and did not read over what i wrote.

what i was referring to is that I would like to ask out girls from work. What i'm chancing is the fact that it can get misconstrued and i'll be labelled a sexist.

I obviously sound like an asshole after re-reading my own. The furthest I would take it would be to hit on a girl. No biggie :-(

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip
[ Parent ]

Sociology 101 (4.75 / 4) (#53)
by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 09:39:25 AM EST

"MINORITY GROUP (OR ETHNIC MINORITY). A group of people who are defined on the basis of their ethnicity or race. Because of their distinct physical or cultural characteristics, they are singled out for unequal treatment within a society."

The term "minority" when used in a sociological context (which is what everyone uses it in knowingly or not) has nothing to do with physical numbers.

Sounds like a back-formation, to me. (3.33 / 3) (#71)
by _Quinn on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:25:44 PM EST

Especially has how that WASPs fit the definition, and I don't think anyone calls them a minority. :)

-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
[ Parent ]
Seriously (4.60 / 5) (#55)
by ubu on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 10:20:31 AM EST

I've been wondering about the label "African-American" a bit since the other day, when I was discussing Skye Edwards. I said she had a "beautiful African-American voice", but then stopped to scratch my head in confusion, because she's from Dover, England. Is she an African-Brit? I'm not sure what how proper term goes.

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
Skye Edwards (4.25 / 4) (#63)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:32:45 AM EST

Is as far as I know, of the category "Afro-Caribbean British", colloquially "Afro-Saxon".

I don't see how anyone can have a problem with "African-American" unless they also complain about "Irish-American", in which case there is probably no hope for them. In any case, it's not a neologism; Malcom X uses it frequently in his Authobiography.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

ah, thanks (4.50 / 4) (#67)
by ubu on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:56:19 AM EST

I guess I don't see the point. I don't think I've ever complained about being called "white". I'm of real English descent, and never objected to being called a "limey poof", "gap-toothed bugger", or "retard from a nation of shopkeepers".

I'm less sensitive than most, I s'pose, but I don't see how euphemistic it can be to deliberately point to someone's descent, as in "African-American" or "Irish-American" or "Asian-American" or "Antarctican-American". I'm quite certain I'll never be an "Anglo-American".

Anyway, I was just wondering what my hygiene-challenged cousins in the good olde UK were using in common parlance when referring to the unspeakable shame of another person's skin color.

Ubu


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
English pc-isms (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by odaiwai on Mon Jul 09, 2001 at 02:24:21 AM EST

It's been my experience that English people of African or Carribean (or wherever) descent would prefer to be called English, or at least British.

In fact, asking someone where they come from and then go "no, I mean where do you *really* come from?" when they say England is a very good way to get your head kicked in.

It's still safe to call the Royal Family 'a bunch of bloody Germans' though.

dave
-- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
[ Parent ]
Black vs. African American (4.40 / 5) (#68)
by ucblockhead on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:04:30 PM EST

Honestly, I've never heard anyone other than a newspaper columnist complain about the term "black". Certainly no one I've met. Yet to complain about the term "African-American" seems equally lame. Who cares?

The thing is, they describe two different things. One term describes race, the other describes descent. Both are reasonable things to describe.

So I continue to use whichever seems appropriate at the particular time until someone objects. Because to me it seems the height of rudeness to call people something they don't want to be called. That's the bottom line here. But as far as I can tell, very few normal people in the black community (as opposed to activists and columnists) find the term objectionable. (Unlike some other words, the worst of which Siggy seems to want to use.)

I seem to remember "African-American" coming into vogue as a replacement for "black" a little after the term "Native American" did. But "Native American" is a little easier to deal with, linguistically speaking, because you don't have the whole problem of what to call a person from Kenya. But I also like Russell Means' whole take on the issue. He says he prefers to be called an Indian because it enshrines an example of European stupidity in the language.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Disagreement on a point. (3.50 / 2) (#80)
by Inoshiro on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:28:01 PM EST

"The thing is, they describe two different things. One term describes race, the other describes descent. Both are reasonable things to describe."

Not if you're using it to base a racism case around. There must be at least a few people who want to be called african-american because they find "black" offensive.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Maybe (4.33 / 3) (#85)
by ucblockhead on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 03:45:20 PM EST

I've never met them personally, though.

The analogy seems pretty clear-> black:white::African American:European American.


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

*ahem* (4.50 / 4) (#70)
by KoanMastah on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 12:10:35 PM EST

can have a problem with "African-American" unless they also complain about "Irish-American",

My grandmother was born in Italy and emigrated here in 1920. She is an Italian-USian..

I was born in Cleveland. I am a USian.

I have a problem with people flaunting their "heritage" when they have never visited, nor can they even tell you anything about their "homeland".




---
And if you quote the jargon file at me I'll come right through this monitor upside your head.

[ Parent ]

How come it's a problem? (3.40 / 5) (#92)
by elenchos on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 04:50:35 PM EST

I'm having trouble seeing the harm. Racial and ethnic identities are social constructs that some people take a great interest in, with little regard for any underlying reality. While they are a possible source of divisiveness, so is religion, political affiliation, and operating system. Anything can get out of hand.

So you could try to remove from people's minds every possible source of comparison and difference (good luck!), but I don't think the resulting world would be very interesting. Or you could just step back and not let it bother you if no one is being harmed, which would be the more practical approach.

Lucille Clifton for President!
Charlie Parker is the national bird.
Howl is recited before professional football games.
You can pay for groceri
[ Parent ]

her-ass-ment (4.70 / 10) (#61)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:00:29 AM EST

...many people now pronounce it 'har-ass-ment'. The reason for this is due to pressure by self-labeled feminists over ...

What are you smoking? It's a difference in accent. Go south of the mason-dixon line sometime. We still pronounce it 'her' rather than 'har'. And I've heard 'hair' some places.

black vs african american. One of my co-workers is 'black', from Cameroon. I have friends who are 'african-american'. A friend of mine from Malawi, several years ago, said that he had never seen a black American. They were all 'coloured'.

"Anything that's invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things", Douglas Adams

whatever (4.00 / 2) (#99)
by delmoi on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 08:32:47 PM EST

yah, yah, yah. The world == shitty. We know.

It strikes me that a lot of these so called 'anti-political-correctness' people are very similar to the kinds of people who want to ban video games after the last school shooting. They take a few incidents, blow them way out of proportion. And then want laws, or changes, or whatever to fix the few flaws in the system.

I'd like to see some real statistics on what's going on, rather then your apparently (based on a lot of the comments) aberrant personal experience and somewhat misguided assumptions. Like I'll say to anyone else: Show me some numbers, or shut the fuck up. I am just so sick of people passing off their opinions as fact.

I'm not denying that there are problems in some aspects of political correctness. But there are a lot more and bigger problems in the world to worry about.

Sheesh, this and the thing about smoking. what is this annoying winners day on k5?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
Freedom of choice angle? (4.00 / 3) (#103)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:19:33 PM EST

I've got this uncle, see, and he scores moderately high on the racist scale. I've heard the term "porch monkey" cross his lips* and a couple of statements about some races making for better athletes. Those are just a couple of examples.

This uncle also happens to own a couple of businesses that employ a couple of tens of people. Now I don't know what his hiring practices actually are, but I'm wondering why he shouldn't have the freedom to hire people according to whatever set of criteria he feels like. (Assuming that he takes no government funding.)

Do laws about workplace discrimination apply to those that don't take government funding/contracts? If so, why doesn't my uncle have the freedom to choose which people he will employ with his money?

Side note: after all, we all have the freedom to choose where we will buy goods and services based on whatever criteria we choose.

* In his defence, there do seem to be a lot of bipedal primates in a neighboorhood near where he lives that spend a truly extraordinary amount of time sitting on their porches, so maybe he was refering to specific ones.



What about right-wing political correctness? (4.00 / 6) (#107)
by cyberformer on Fri Jul 06, 2001 at 11:46:52 PM EST

Why do we only hear complaints about left-wing political correctness from the right? The corporate media is full of right-wing political correctness:
  • "Downsizing", "Rationalisation", "Efficiency gains", etc. for firing people.
  • "Collateral damage" for killing people.
  • "Political correctness" for showing even a small amount of respect and courtesy towards others.


conservatively correct (4.00 / 3) (#109)
by strlen on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 01:04:52 AM EST

precisely. read a comment i previously made on this topic. bottom line is that censorship is bad, mmkay, and don't claim you fight for free speed unless you're going to be defending what you DON'T like, and not what you sympthasize with :-)

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
In response to the bunch of crap floating around.. (4.50 / 2) (#115)
by farl on Sat Jul 07, 2001 at 06:33:19 AM EST

In response to a bunch of comments that I have seen here:
  1. To our Canadian Inoshiro: This is obviously a US Centric article with regards to the organizations quoted. However, the issues do cross borders. But I must agree with you that getting smacked down rudely like you did was rather bad, and I do encourage your return fire.
  2. EOE: This is a crap system. I have heard how it is ruining the country I grew up in (.ZA) and I am sure the other .ZA's still stuck there can confirm this. The purpose of an "EOE" type organisation should NOT be to correct the wrong by overcompensating, but rather to correct the wrong to make sure that FROM THIS DAY FORWARDS hiring policies are not based on discriminations.
  3. Capitalism: While hiring crap employees allows you to pay a crap wage, hiring better employees allows you to MAKE more money in the long run. Also, if you are making the same crap wage as an idiot, doesn't that say something about you and your bargaining ability? or lack thereof?
  4. Sensitivity Training: I have been to some of these seminars, from really poor ones to really good ones. They teach skills that hopefully your parents/elders should have taught you as a kid. Worth knowing. But have a brain and work it out by yourself. It is all pretty obvious to anyone with any form of IQ (Tech excepted).
The obvious answer is to go to a form of socialism, where people are placed on their abilities, skills and knowledge. However again we all now that this doesn't work in reality, humans being like they are.

So basically everyone needs to relax, stop getting uptight, and just try to avoid pissing people off unnecessarily. For more info on how not to be rude (or whether rudeness exists even), check this out: "The Myth of Being Rude".

I don't believe in rudeness. I think being politically correct is a pile of shit, but I also do try to respect other people. It is a question of balance, and knowing when to just shut up.


Farl
k5@sketchwork.com
www.sketchwork.com
The Meaning's Not In The Words | 129 comments (107 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!