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]
Equal Opportunity To Exclude?

By porkchop_d_clown in Op-Ed
Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:14:53 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

The same day I read the HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux article I read an editorial by the nationally syndicated writer, William Raspberry.

In his column he wonders when and why it is okay to exclude some groups of people from some organizations. He has eloquently raised a number of issues that trouble me.


You can find a mirror of his column here.

The incentive to the editorial was a quote from one of his previous columns:

And part of my uncertainty is the fact that while both may be odious, men-only rules aren't quite in the same category as white-only rules.

This statement generated a lot of feedback from his readers (as you might expect). Raspberry (who is black) belongs to a fraternity that is historically black but does not have a written "blacks only" rule. This rang a bell for me, because my fraternity has no written rules about race but certainly looks pretty damn white. He raises a number of troubling questions about this and other forms of exclusion:

  1. When is okay for a group to exclude membership on the basis of sex? Is a boys' choir a bad thing by definition? Are the girl scouts as bad as (for example) a whites-only sign in a shop window?
  2. What about the "Harlem Boys Choir"? Should I be insulted that my son isn't going get invited to join that organization?
  3. Why are men-only organizations treated as bad or at least archaic, but women-only events, businesses and organizations are celebrated?
  4. Should I be pissed that "Fashion Bug" (a women's clothing chain) doesn't carry any clothes that fit me?
  5. One argument for breaking the gender-bar of some "social" club is that the club represents an "old-boys network" - barring a woman from joining the club effectively limits her career. Is that valid? I've heard (first hand) from a woman who was angry that her male co-workers were having business conversations in the mens' room. Should I be angry that there are special clubs for female executives that I can't join?

My own opinion has always been that people should be free to do what they like, within certain limits - a business that is open to the public, is open to the public, period. Hiring should be based on the ability of the candidate, and education should be open to anyone who can and wants to learn (but does that mean a women's college is evil?)

On the other hand, I have no problem with fraternities, sororities, or organizations that are only open to award-winning swedish yodelers. I think people with common interests should be allowed to congregate together without fear of attack from outsiders who have an incompatible agenda. Am I wrong?

Since Mr. Raspberry is far more eloquent than I, let me close with a quote from his article:

Is it a form of "Animal Farm" pigheadedness to insist that all discrimination is odious, but some discrimination is more odious than others? Or is it reasonable to rank life's various exclusions in terms of their odiousness -- to count racial exclusion as worse than gender exclusion, to hold exclusion from professional associations as worse than exclusion from private and social organizations?

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
Do you belong to a single sex organization?
o Yes 14%
o No 62%
o Used to 14%
o Porkchop is an evil troll 9%

Votes: 114
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux
o column
o here
o Also by porkchop_d_clown


Display: Sort:
Equal Opportunity To Exclude? | 179 comments (160 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
some discrimination is most certainly more odious (4.54 / 11) (#4)
by nex on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:02:27 AM EST

Not every type of exclusion, no matter if it's a written rule or a customary law, is equally sensible or odious, but ranking them based on wheter the criterion is gender, ethnic group, etc. would be over-simplifying.

For example, there's no reason why there should be no women in the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. It has consisted exclusively of men for a pretty long time, and even now some members don't want to have any women in their orchestra. However, there already are two or three and their ratio will grow, because they play as good as the male members. On the other hand, one might argue that there shouldn't be a woman in the Tyrolean Alpendodel Quintett, because they sing traditional tyrolean folk measures that were specifically composed for male voices.

So, you see, sometimes excluding the very same group of people actually makes sense, while sometimes it doesn't.

Not all discrimination (I'm using the word in its neutral sense here) is odious, and some discrimination is most certainly more odious than others.

nex, who had already grown too tall for a tank driver, once they finally allowed women in the army; what a pitty.

But is "no reason" the same as "wro (4.66 / 3) (#13)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:21:38 AM EST

You say there is no reason to exclude women from the Vienna Philharmonic. But there's no "reason" to exclude women from my fraternity, either. So, what's the difference? Is there a compelling reason to require the Vienna Philharmonic to change, but not the Freemasons?


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

in this case, yes (3.80 / 5) (#22)
by nex on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:06:50 AM EST

If someone would like to be, well,  <anything>, but is excluded although there's no good reason for excluding him or her, this is wrong indeed.

Have you seen La Vita è bella from/with Roberto Benigni? When his son asks him why Jews are not allowed to enter certain shops, Roberto ironicly explains to the little boy that they have the right to exclude anyone they don't like, and he further states that he also will exclude people he doesn't like, namely Visigoths, from his shop. His son doesn't like spiders, so he ironicly says the he will put up a sign in his shop that says "No spiders and Visigoths allowed in this shop!".

> So, what's the difference?
Don't ask me, I'm not American, I find fraternities stupid, I find sororities stupid, and in this context, I find gender seperation stupid. So, I'd say, there's no difference indeed, both are wrong. I'm biased; in my country, every student society/club/union that only allows men/women to join is between rather right-wing and extremely right-wing. I hate them.

[ Parent ]

unfortunately he is 100% wrong (1.84 / 19) (#15)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:29:08 AM EST

"I've heard (first hand) from a woman who was angry that her male co-workers were having business conversations in the mens' room. Should I be angry that there are special clubs for female executives that I can't join?"

Well, MAYBE WHEN THE SENATE IS EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT FEMALE, THE HOUSE IS ABOUT THE SAME, AND THE PRESIDENT AND THE CABINET ARE WOMEN, AND MOST OF THE FORTUNE FIVE HUNDRED ARE RUN BY WOMEN, HE MIGHT HAVE A FRIGGIN POINT..... BUT UNTIL THEN HE IS COMPLETELY WRONG

Should CEOs and executives be angry that they cannot be the leaders of the Union in their own companies?

That's what I love about you, Turmeric. (4.44 / 9) (#18)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:37:03 AM EST

Your ability to create a logical argument that will persuade and impress people who disagree with you.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

again, i am just like eminem, so stop censoring me (2.42 / 7) (#28)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:24:31 PM EST

its not my fault, i have been traumatized by the stupidity of linux zealots for so many years. like eminem, i play a 'character' to fight back aginst the hypocrisy and oprpession of "white america". you should be buying my albums not discriminating and protesting against me.

[ Parent ]
Good timing... (4.50 / 2) (#34)
by Gooba42 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:34:33 PM EST

I was just complaining last night that Eminem is a good example of us glorifying someone who makes a point of not being a good guy. Character or not, we're paying him to be an ass.

Discrimination against the good guys?

[ Parent ]
Interesting definition of "censor" (5.00 / 6) (#51)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:44:29 PM EST

Apparently I censor you by giving you a platform from which to vent your opionions.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

You are not like Eminem (5.00 / 4) (#61)
by docvin on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:22:05 PM EST

  1. Enimem is at least moderately talented
  2. Eminem can write coherent sentences
  3. Eminem can use capital letters consistently
  4. Many people like Eminem
  5. Eminem doesn't post so much crap to k5.


[ Parent ]
Don't let The Man keep you down, turmeric. (none / 0) (#99)
by kitten on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:24:45 PM EST


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps (4.53 / 13) (#23)
by krek on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:28:01 AM EST

It is simply a matter of progress. There is no way we can tackle all of the negative discrimination all at once without ripping the fabric of our society apart and plunging us all into anarchy. So, instead, we tackle cases of negative discrimination in the order of their odiousness, from most to least, thus we can acheive a steady and controlled ascention to a better society. Once we have racial discimination nailed down we will be able to divert our attentions to gender and sexuality, then to age and intelligence, etc, etc...

That's just off the top of my head.

But, it begs the question: When do we stop? Is discimination against people the only thing we are concerned about? Perhaps all fauna and flora deserve our protection. What about companies? Is it right for me to discriminate against Pepsi in favour of Coke? Is it alright for me to not want to be someone's friend? To have a prefered child? To be proud of my country? Where is the line drawn?

I would suggest that discrimination is actually a valuable human commodity, it allows us to differentiate between that which is conducive to our continued existence and that which is not. I would suggest that we do not want to eliminate discrimination, but merely to be aware of it and temper it with civility and fairness.

And, lastly, I will point out that it is only recently that discrimination has become a bad thing. It used to be that to be said to have discriminating tastes was a great compliment, meaning only that you had the abilties of a connaiseur in differentiation and imlying that you prefered quality.

"Begs the question" alert! (3.44 / 9) (#43)
by jmzero on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:22:32 PM EST

The phrase "begs the question" has a specific meaning - it refers to a circular argument like "The Bible is true because God says it is right in the Bible".

It does not mean "prompts the question" or "begs for someone to ask the question".  Not trying to be a Nazi, just trying to rescue a phrase I like.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Really?? (4.16 / 6) (#45)
by krek on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:27:04 PM EST

Indeed, you are correct.

They suggest using the phrase "raises the question".

Thank you for saving me, who knows how many more years I would have continued to be ignorant of this fact.

[ Parent ]
Discrinimation to what ends? (3.85 / 7) (#24)
by JasonDiceman on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:49:00 AM EST

Some people will always be excluded from any type of association. Whether it be the location of the meetings, the entrance fee, the language spoken or the group policies, the structure and situation of an association will alwatys limit access to some people.  


I think the important questions are: what is the reasoning and affect of the discrimination?  What impacts will it have on our community? For example, a white-men's only group for discussing postcolonial white guilt, might not be such a bad idea.  On the other hand, a white-men's only group for securing business deals perpetuates inequality and elite power.  


Discrimination to create a safe and comfortable space to open up is socially constructive.  Discrimination to restrict access to power and opportunity; that's not cool.  Discrimination based on culture and heritage?  That's tricky.  All I can say is: discuss your policies openly and honestly with the community.  If no one has a problem with it, then it's not a problem.  If people feel disenfranchised, then there is an issue to be dealt with.  Sensible public deliberation should hopefully find a resolution.




The problem is (4.33 / 3) (#44)
by tzanger on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:24:58 PM EST

All I can say is: discuss your policies openly and honestly with the community. If no one has a problem with it, then it's not a problem. If people feel disenfranchised, then there is an issue to be dealt with.

The problem is that with a big enough community, there are always peopl who will complain about being oppressed.



[ Parent ]
That's why we have charters and rights. (4.00 / 1) (#68)
by JasonDiceman on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 06:02:47 PM EST

If oppression is not defined by a commonly accepted agreement (e.g. constituions, charters, treatise, laws) then it can not be easily addressed. That's why we need to continually mature and modernize these social contracts.

[ Parent ]
In other words... (4.66 / 6) (#49)
by avdi on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:33:58 PM EST

...one group's idea of what constitutes "social justice" always has to come out on top, and dictate what other groups can or can' do.  Because believe me, there will *always* be someone who opposes any particular group, even if they do nothing that actually hurts that person.  If you decide that an individual, a group, or even a majority has the right to dictate the rules of some /other/ group's association given just cause, then you have to have someone to decide what constitutes "just cause".  Who will that enlightened person or persons be?  If you think that the "socially constructive" choice is obvious to any right-thinking individual, please don't ever run for office.

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
[ Parent ]
Who decides... (4.00 / 1) (#67)
by JasonDiceman on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 06:00:10 PM EST

First, your assumptions are quite scary. "...there will *always* be someone who opposes any particular group, even if they do nothing that actually hurts that person." Is this true? Are people opposing local football teams in your town? Are people opposing swimming lesons or math tutoring or line dancing classes or ...? I would say that people only bother to oppose something they feel is important to oppose. Sure there are a few wackos now and then that like to stir up shit just to get attention, but with a simple community consultation, ridiculous accusations can be easily dismissed.

...you have to have someone to decide what constitutes "just cause". Who will that enlightened person or persons be?

I would recommend a public court following established humans rights, community charters, constitutions and modern law.

[ Parent ]

Well, how 'bout some random links. Google for more (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by derobert on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:22:55 AM EST

Are people opposing local football teams in your town? Are people opposing swimming lesons or math tutoring or line dancing classes or ...?

You picked some activities (especially dancing!) where there is a LOT of "few wackos" in certain parts of the country. Couldn't come up with a link for swimming or math, though. I bet I could find some for tutoring --- a lot of people complain when the rich get more education than the poor, and thus would complain about private tutoring.

[ Parent ]

Hiring (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by tzanger on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:06:06 PM EST

Hiring should be based on the ability of the candidate, and education should be open to anyone who can and wants to learn (but does that mean a women's college is evil?)

What about a Hooter's bar?

Excellent story, btw. +1FP from me.



Well, that's ability, isn't it? (3.00 / 3) (#39)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:49:11 PM EST

Actually, I'm not a fan of "Hooters". In particular, I find the "family establishment with lots of healthy young waitresses" advertising to be really offensive.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

No (4.00 / 1) (#84)
by LukeyBoy on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:35:27 PM EST

The Equal Employment Commision filed a lawsuit years ago against Hooters - specifically because they hire only "Hooters Girls". No idea how it's been going so far though.

[ Parent ]
Hooters does hire men. (4.00 / 1) (#94)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:30:43 PM EST

Someone has to cook and clean, don't they?


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

LOL (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by LukeyBoy on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:34:43 PM EST

Not as Hooters Girls.

[ Parent ]
It comes down to the community (4.18 / 11) (#26)
by gauntlet on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:06:22 PM EST

Racial discrimination was not a problem until the community stopped accepting it. Gender discrimination was not a problem until the community stopped accepting it. Segregation in bathroom facilities seems to be something the community hasn't stopped accepting. Having only blacks in the Harlem Boys' Choir is something the community hasn't stopped accepting. Having only men in the Harlem Boys' Choir is something the community hasn't stopped accepting. Having only youth in the Harlem Boys' Choir is something the community hasn't stopped accepting. Having only people that can sing in the Harlem Boys' Choir is something the community hasn't stopped accepting.

Each organization must look to its community and say, "Do our practices meet with the approval of those with whom we interact?" If not, they need not adjust their practices, but they will unless they want to be ostracized or legislated against.

Fraternities, or to be more general, secret societies have the advantage of interacting with the society within which they exist very rarely, and so are less affected by the question of whether or not their practices are approved. If no one knows about them, they can't be disapproved of.

Governments, of course, are the exception. They are required to epitomize the ideal, which is largely understood to be as little discrimination as can be acheived while still protecting the public's interests.

Into Canadian Politics?

Skimming close to Majority Myopia (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by greenrd on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 06:18:38 AM EST

Racial discrimination was not a problem until the community stopped accepting it.

I don't think oppressed blacks would have agreed with you there. I don't think you meant it like that though... right?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

A Clarification, if I must (4.00 / 1) (#167)
by gauntlet on Tue Nov 12, 2002 at 12:50:02 PM EST

Until society seeks to change something, it's not a problem. And until society finds something unacceptable, they won't want to change it. These are the definitions I'm using.

I would never be so politically incorrect as to insinuate that racism is acceptable to me. To deny that it had ever been socially acceptable would be to deny the truth.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

All groups are not equale. (3.00 / 8) (#27)
by jjayson on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:09:17 PM EST

Because of a history of oppression of certain groups in the recent past, it is acceptable for them to form clubs or groups to support them. A woman's only gym is because many women still feel awkward from sexism a coed gyms. The Nation Association for the Advancement of Color People (NAACP) is there to help those that were oppressed in the past get a leg up in education and business. These are completely acceptable since they are needed because of America's history of sexism and racism. You would never see an National Association for the Advancement of White People because that is not needed and it would be racist to restrict on race in that situation. You cannot paint all action that is specific to a group as racists or sexist. You need to look at the history and reasons by them individually.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

I've never bought this (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by ScuzzMonkey on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:41:16 PM EST

I mean, I understand the argument, but it seems a little wiggly to me. We're told that various 'isms' are absolutely bad--racism, sexism, etc.--evil, in fact, but that practicing the letter of them (by, say, excluding whites or men on the basis of them being, well, white or male) is justified in certain instances by circumstance or the 'spirit' of eliminating them.

The problem I have with that is, if racism is truly wrong and evil, then it just is. There's no justification based on circumstance or history that is acceptable, if this is a truly evil practice.

And if it's not truly evil, if it can be justified in some manner, then who is to say that it's worse in one direction than another? If it's possible to justify racism, then don't we have to consider the views of a 1950's white cracker as weighty as a 1990's member of NAACP? Where is the inherent right in proclaiming that you can do something based on history that someone else cannot? History happens every day.

At some point, the real justification for this is 'we can get away with it and you can't' which is disturbingly similar to what you might have heard out of that '50s era white cracker in a particularly honest moment. He'd have his historical justifications and arguments about rights based on the status of his ancestors, but it ultimately comes down to that one justification. It's a lousy argument, because it comes around, and it's a cycle we should be breaking and not perpetuating.

I'm not convinced that racism or sexism are particularly good in any context, and I think that in allowing or approving of them in ANY manner today, we are merely setting ourselves up for a future where they will continue to predominate in people's relations to one another. We may not need a NAAWP today (although some people in Northern Idaho seem to think we do), but by justifying and glorifying NAACP, a horrible precedent is created for such an organization in the future.


No relation to Happy Monkey (User #5786)
[ Parent ]

This may be the difference. (none / 0) (#55)
by jjayson on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:11:46 PM EST

The problem I have with that is, if racism is truly wrong and evil, then it just is. There's no justification based on circumstance or history that is acceptable, if this is a truly evil practice.
This may be how I view things differently. I try to look at the reasons behind actions to gauge if they are "wrong and evil." A bartender during the time of slave trade scaring away black customers because he knows that if they come into the bar this group of thugs will lynch them is a far different case then hit scaring them because he hates them.

Froups like the NOW and NAACP exist to alleviate the effects of generations of racism and sexism that we still feel today. They have a reason very unique to them that a organization for the white males could never historically have. This is why I wouldn't call these groups "racist" but they definitely -- at time, but not always -- try to use racial preference to affect change. The reason isn't because they can get away from it; it is because they need fix the current situation. This is one of the reasons that I am highly in favor of affirmative action.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Could be... (none / 0) (#57)
by ScuzzMonkey on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:26:03 PM EST

But surely you can see the irony of trying to change something by encouraging its further application? If discriminating against someone solely on the basis of race is 'racism' then what they do is racist. Anything else is just futzing with the definition.

As I said, I see the argument being made--it's a bit like, if you've steered too far left on the road, you need to steer right for a bit to get back on track. But I'm not convinced that analogy, or technique, is applicable to these sorts of social situations. We're not on a road--this is more like an echo chamber, I think. The reverbs only increase if you try to yell the opposite of what was yelled before. I think if you want to reduce, alleviate, or wipe out the effects of racism, then you need to avoid racism in all ways, shapes, and colors--and not simplisticly define it as only occuring when a white person discriminates against a black person. Only by being universally even-handed, in all situations, with people of all colors, can racism ever be eradicated.


No relation to Happy Monkey (User #5786)
[ Parent ]

It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by I Robot on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:20:43 AM EST

That I am labeled an "old white man".

It wasn't enough to identify me as old or as a man or even as an old man ... nope, you had to make a racial distinction, too.

Old white man. Do you think old black men don't seek each others company or old Spanish women? Does anyone even stack old lumber with new?

"Birds of a feather flock together" Always have. Why? Because it's good for the birds.

Well, I didn't mention it earlier, but out of the half-dozen or so "old white men" I hang out with, 2 are an extremely dark shade of white ... basically charcoal-white or burnt-umber-white in color. That doesn't make much difference to us. Everybody gets a turn to buy and when somebody needs a ride to the autoparts store, one of us will get him there. It's called friendship among Christian men. You ought to look into it sometime.

I have never knowingly benefitted from preferential treatment against blacks. Everywhere I have worked there have been blacks all through the company ... top to bottom.I have supervised blacks and been supervised by them.  I have hired them off the street, promoted the good ones and fired the bad and then hired more to replace them. But I have certainly suffered from a racially motivated abomination called "affirmative action".

----------------------

It was the early 1970's and I was freshly out of high school. I applied for work in the auto plants which were hiring at the time. They were hiring lots of young black men and black women. The joke was it took dark skin, nice curves and a Spanish last name to bolt a bumper on but anybody with a job could walk into the dealership and buy one.

 White men were too short or too tall or too heavy or too light and either didn't score well enough on the aptitude tests or scored too high.

I scored too high and at, 5' 9" and 145#, was too short and weighed too much. And I was a little pale looking.

I have a deep scar, 26 stitches worth, because some young black men at a factory I was working in a couple years ago decided it would be fun to injure the only white guy on their crew. 1/8" deeper or 1/4" lower and I would have been permanently disabled. The metal swung down in an arc. When it got deep enough it pulled a chunk of muscle out and ripped sideways then continued its arc and sliced the flap of tissue it had pulled free. It's shaped like an upside down cross.

I simply dealt with that injury. I very much wanted steady employment. I did light work for a couple weeks to keep it from being a reportable injury and then went back to my regular crew. When they started trying to injure me again I found it impossible to interest management on the floor or in the front offices in protecting me.

I quit.

Old white men who quit jobs have a hard time getting re-hired. I haven't had a steady job since.

That's the reality.

The Civil Rights acts became law in 1965. I graduated high school in 1970. I have been punished ... all of my life ... for something that happened before I was even a teenager.

That's not "justice" that's revenge and a piling of one wrong on top of another.

[ Parent ]

Er... (none / 0) (#154)
by ScuzzMonkey on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 10:57:37 AM EST

I think you replied to the wrong message?
No relation to Happy Monkey (User #5786)
[ Parent ]
Your criteria are valid (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by I Robot on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:38:36 AM EST

For historical purposes but otherwise without value.

When I am shut out of a job on the pretext that someone else was shut out of a job 60 or 100 years ago, I can't help but point out that I am only 50 years old and took no part in the original injury and should take no part in the revenging of it.

I can show you photographs of a family cemetary in WVa wherein my own family fought and died over the issue of slavery ... and were buried where they fell ... on our own soil. My family already paid the full price and then some over the issue of slavery. We are paid up. Get out a map. Find the Kanawha valley (hint: includes Chaleston and Beckley). That is what we lost in the "reconstruction". We owned that. We farmed it and logged it.

So, why was I shut out in favor of affirmative action? That was just a way of saying "Okay ... we were rough on blacks before. Now we are going to be rough on whites for a while to even it out."

Wait a second: who's this 'we'? I took no part in anything that happened before my birth and not a whole lot for about the next 20 years.

The blacks who are being helped weren't harmed and the whites who are being harmed aren't guilty.

[ Parent ]

Buy it. (none / 0) (#161)
by xigxag on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 03:45:00 PM EST

We're told that various 'isms' are absolutely bad--racism, sexism, etc.--evil, in fact, but that practicing the letter of them (by, say, excluding whites or men on the basis of them being, well, white or male) is justified in certain instances by circumstance or the 'spirit' of eliminating them.

That's not really the justification that people have.  It's more like:  Racism is defined as an evil form of racial discrimination, sexism is defined as an evil form of sexual discrimination.  However, racial discrimination and sexual discrimination may or may not be evil, depending upon the circumstance.  Sort of the way that murder is defined as an evil form of killing even though other killing -- in war, justifiable homicide, mercy killing -- may or may not be evil.

Certain forms of racial discrimination wind up not bothering the vast majority of people, e.g. the Grand Marshal of the St. Patrick's Day Parade winds up being of Irish ancestry or the actor selected to play a Rabbi in a weekly drama series turns out to be a Jew.  This sort of discrimination has a much different flavor than does a sign posted saying, "No Jews or Irish Allowed."  Maybe the distinction is subtle, but I think in most cases people have no difficulty determining which one feels wrong, even if they can't articulate why.  


[ Parent ]

Two wrongs do not make a right and (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:20:41 PM EST

the ends do not justify the means. If something is wrong, it is wrong - not okay for some people.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

But are two wrongs occurring? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:43:04 PM EST

The blacks only groups generally exist to assist black in dealing with racism. They are defensive.

Whites only groups generally exist to oppress others. They are on offense.

Interesting aside, a black friend did invite me to join the National Society of Black Engineers, even though I'm white. He said they have that name for historical reasons. Another black guy who was around also encouraged me to join.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

You need a better argument. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by mcherm on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:37:47 PM EST

The blacks only groups generally exist to assist black in dealing with racism. They are defensive.

Whites only groups generally exist to oppress others. They are on offense.

That's ridiculous. Augusta National Golf Club does not exist "to oppress others". It exists to provide its members a chance to play golf! The fact that you (and I agree) think this oppresses others doesn't make that their goal.

The NAACP, on the other hand, has the express purpose of advancing "colored persons". Their goal is to increase the percentage of black social, political, and business leaders in America. Mathematically, that means the percentage of white leaders must decrease. If one of these two groups has the oppression of others as its "goal", one would have to say it was the NAACP.

Don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that the NAACP is "good", and Augusta National is "bad" in some broad ethical sense. I'm just not quite sure why. But your argument isn't it.

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

I am not looking to ends. I am looking at reasons. (none / 0) (#54)
by jjayson on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:05:24 PM EST

The ends would be to see if these organizations, like the NAACP, really did afford blacks more opportunities. Just like looking to see if the KKK is acceptable because the more people that see them the more people realize how stupid racism is.

I am looking to the reasons for their existance. Racism caused slavery which caused poverty which caused fewer opportunities for black men and women. Organizations liket the NAACP exist to less the impacts we are still feeling from generations ago. These groups seek to build up the minority so they do have equal opportunity and resources, to create a level playing field that still dosn't exist.

This is the same way you would evaluate any action. Yes, I could give you $300 and that might on face seem good, but maybe I did it knowing you would go buy and gun and shoot yourself with it, and I just happened to hate you. Morality is not based on an action, but a reason.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

Racism is racism... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Gooba42 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:38:48 PM EST

We can't call it by a different name according to what we feel is "moral". The NAACP is an even more racist organization than most, having a socially sanctioned purpose for its racism doesn't make it any less racism.

Letting our sensibilities pervert our language is just two steps from newspeak. Will we next be inventing a new word for racism of the "good" kind? It's total nonsense to talk "honestly and openly" on eggshells.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#48)
by jmzero on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:32:53 PM EST

A woman's only gym is because many women still feel awkward from sexism a coed gyms.

I think a men's only gym is a valid proposition - surely there are men out there who would feel more comfortable if they didn't have to show their fat bodies to women while they worked out.  The pasty-white blubbery man has been abused horribly for years - they need a place where they can work out without toned womens' disapproving glares.

I don't see what's wrong with a NAAWP - assumedly white people have interests to be championed just as black people have interests (though, likely, none so grevious).  Certainly we can't assume that the NAAWP would want to advance the interests of white people at the expense of anyone else, just as I don't assume the NAACP is out to bring me down.  I think it would be wrong for either group to limit membership to people of a certain race, but there's no reason they shouldn't exist.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

There is not corresponding white situation (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by jjayson on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:00:10 PM EST

You are just setting up strawmem. Find a gym that descriminates against fit people and let's hear their reasons, then decide. Issues are not as black and white as you want them to be sometimes.

I don't see what's wrong with a NAAWP - assumedly white people have interests to be championed just as black people have interests(though, likely, none so grevious).
Look at their reason to exists. A judge of racism requires that. Just as knowing that a black man was turned away from a restraunt does not let you make a call of racism, you need to look at the reason -- that he was black -- to make that call. He could have been turned away for not wearing any shoes. The NAACP has a mandate to correct social injustices that were done in the past that we still feel repurcussions of. An excellent example is how there are almost no black coaches in college sports. This comes from a period of slavery and the ensuing poverty and lack of education that caused biases in hiring practices. Now we have coaches that can do the job (e.g., Tyron Willingham just hired this year as Notre Dame's first black coach ever) but hardly anybody hires black coaches still. The NAACP is out there to champion that blacks in discriminating areas. There is no correcsponding situation for white people. The NAACP give scholarships to predominantly blacks because there is an education gap between the races.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Are you contending (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:10:30 PM EST

That white people are never discriminated against because they are white?

You must be living in a different world then I.

If you truely want to live in a fair society then the rules must be applied equaly to everyone.

In fact, I think "equal protection under the law" is a constitutional right.

Either you let everyone form exclusive orginizations (including upper middle class white males) or you let no one do so.

Anything else just promotes hatred and disatisfaction with society.

Personaly I would be in favor of letting any PRIVATE institution (including privately owned bussiness) discriminate against anyone they choose to.

Do you really think that forcing (through legislation or litigation) people to associate with some-one whom they don't wish to associate with will in any way improve those peoples attitude or treatment of the excluded person?

No it will only make those people more embittered and spur them to acts of retribution... although these acts are likely to be driven under ground.

You can not change peoples hearts and minds by force.... and that's where discrimination really exists... in peoples hearts and minds. The only way you can ever change that is to allow people to make up their own minds that discrimination is wrong.... and you can only do that when they are ready and willing for themselves to take that step.

Any attempt to force it is simply an exercise in futility.

[ Parent ]

You missed my point (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by jmzero on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 06:36:56 PM EST

Find a gym that descriminates against fit people and let's hear their reasons, then decide.

I don't know there is any - all I'm saying is that it would be legitimate to propose a "men only fitness club".

Issues are not as black and white as you want them to be sometimes.

Uhhh, yeah. OK.  I don't see how this is relevant to what I was saying - but it is fun to insert random platitudes into discussions.  How about "Children are our future!  Why can't you understand that?"

There is no correcsponding situation for white people.

Wha?  I agree that there's not a lot of horrible discrimination against white people - but just because it's not that bad doesn't mean that NAAWP would be illegitmate or racist.  For example, they could speak out against movies that depict white people as lame, or as unable to dance or jump.

The NAACP give scholarships to predominantly blacks because there is an education gap between the races.

Uhhh.. Thanks.  My whole point is that the NAACP is legitimate, just as the NAAWP would be legitimate (although nobody's too interested in forming one, because, like you say, there's no real pressing need).  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

http://www.naawp.org/ (none / 0) (#70)
by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:12:06 PM EST


 

Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
[ Parent ]
Wow. (none / 0) (#86)
by jmzero on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:46:17 PM EST

Who knew? I guess I should have known. Thanks.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
It might be important to note .... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by HypoLuxa on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:40:31 PM EST

That a lot of organizations that have a race based agenda (or other minority agenda) do not discriminate in their membership at all. The NAACP, ADL, Act Up! spring to mind as being organizations that accept anyone at all who is willing to work towards their cause, regardless of whether or not they happen to be black, jewish, or gay.

Actually, if I recall correctly, I was a member of NOW for some years, despite my testicles.

--
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
- Leonard Cohen
[ Parent ]

do we have a right to association? (4.57 / 7) (#29)
by kubalaa on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:39:41 PM EST

Everybody seems to assume that we have a right to hang out with people who don't want us around. I'm not seeing why that's the case. If one person, for whatever reason, chooses not to associate with another, why should we disagree? As long as there's no active oppression, simply exclusion...

Of course it's not that ideal -- groups do try and actively interfere with the lives of non-members. For example, someone could argue that the goverment is run by rich businessmen, who are influenced by their boys' clubs, and so indirectly oppressing females. But the obvious solution would be to try and limit the influence of these special interests over others, rather than trying to get the others into the action.

2 cents (3.57 / 7) (#31)
by bukvich on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 12:58:59 PM EST

1.) The journalist's (W.R.) correspondent who said being female and being black are both a matter of biology is wrong. Men and women are biologically distinct. Race is purely a social construct. There is no black chromosome.

2.) Good old boy's club argument. Inviting women into the golf club is eventually irrelevant. Socializing with cow workers is a bizarre custom that contributes zilch to the bottom line; in fact it detracts from it. Corporate cultures which do not promote this have a competitive advantage and are more likely to eventually rule. You do not have friends in the work place. You have colleagues. Treating them like friends is stupid. If boys want to behave good-old-boyishly like their daddies did, I say let them. They are making themselves obsolete as they do this.

3.) Who gives a shit who Augusta lets into their club? Basically it's a TV show.

4.) Does anybody here participate in invite-only mailing lists? Private invitation-only clubs like fraternities? In the past I have been in a couple such environments and didn't really get that much out of them. Group think is an inferior form of thinking, irrespective of the style of group think.

5.) Workplace or housing or lending or insuring or criminal law enforcement discrimination are  totally different subject areas. Creating unnecessary conflict elsewhere runs a risk of blowback. Unfortunately there are plenty of bigots around who dearly love to justify themselves by labelling the underprivileged as whiners or troublemakers or whatnot. Choose your battles wisely. We must choose our battles wisely. I am a male, but I consider myself a feminist. Really there are about a thousand issues NOW ought to address before this one. Are they doing this primarily for attention?

Group Think (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:20:09 PM EST

I belong to the masons, and to two distinct "splinter factions" - Shrine and Tall Cedars. In addition I belong to a church, an astronomy club, and uh, k5.

"Group Think" does enable individuals to accomplish things they could not on their own - run a free hospital, have star parties with thousands of participants, and, of course, argue with Europeans about the pronunciation of "USian".

So, yeah, these groups all serve a purpose. The one that actually gets the most done is not only invitation only, you have to get vetted by other members.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

You belong to the Masons?! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:24:44 PM EST

Now, tell me honestly; he's right, isn't he? I so desparately want him to be right. It would explain so much.
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

Reference on the "no black chromosome".. (4.66 / 3) (#38)
by Gooba42 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:45:40 PM EST

I'm honestly curious about this particular comment. Is this true? Is it something we just haven't found yet?

I'm fairly certain that white parents produce white offspring in a consistent manner, is this just a matter of coincidence? If my child was conceived and born in say, Africa, would they be born black out of environmental factors?

To be very blunt and invite all sorts of insult, the difference between black and white people is easy to see. We know *what* the color is, but do we know why some people produce the pigment in such abundance if it *isn't* genetic?

[ Parent ]
genetic (4.50 / 2) (#46)
by drivers on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:27:07 PM EST

The pigment in your skin is largely genetic, however it is made of a wide variety of genes. Yes there is variability and it continues along family lines and within populations. However the variations are along a gradual line... not even a line really, more line an n-dimensional space... there is no clear differentiation between "races".. it's where you've learned to draw the line. Another point is that skin color varies independently with other characteristics which are considered racial characteristics. How this differs from sex is that all the male sex characteristics are on the Y chromosome and come as a package, if you will.

[ Parent ]
Not a switch... (4.25 / 4) (#62)
by ttfkam on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:29:15 PM EST

It isn't that black people have skin pigmentation and white people don't.  That is an artificial, social distinction.  Everyone has melanin in their skin: the chemical that affects skin tone.  Some people have more than others, but there is no black chromosome.

If a white friend of yours has curly hair, do you consider them slightly black?  If a black person has green eyes, are they kind of white?

The only reason people have even thought that the black chromosome or white chromosome exists is because they expect there to be a difference, not because the difference exists.

There is but one race on this planet: the human race.  All other designations refer to cultural differences that happen to coincide with physical appearance.  People may interact with one another because of appearance, but there is no biological justification for this to be so.

If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
[ Parent ]

the "good old boys club" argument (4.60 / 5) (#41)
by gbroiles on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 01:52:58 PM EST

isn't about hanging out with co-workers in the same company, it's about forming or retaining social ties with people in other companies or industries, and then steering business their way in exchange for the same treatment from them. (e.g., Joe buys insurance from Bob, and Bob buys his office supplies from Joe, and they both get their hair cut by Jim, etc ..).

People tend to do business with their friends and hire their friends when they can - it's neither evil nor stupid, as long as it's not taken to an extreme. It can make lots of economic sense if you look beyond the immediate price - maybe you can get office supplies cheaper at Office Depot, but they're not going to turn around and be a loyal customer of yours, nor are they going to cut you any slack on credit terms or help you out at 10 PM on a Sunday night when you need to get something finished by 8 AM on Monday morning. Also, commercial disputes within a network like that are less likely to occur, and if they do are less likely to lead to litigation or total failure, because of the depth & complexity of relationships.

But, if you're not one of the "friends", things can be pretty difficult unless/until you get introduced into an existing network, or form a new one.

Corporate cultures put a lot of time and effort into trying to act like reliable, familiar members of a network so they can get those benefits - it's unlikely they'll succeed, even if their employees are decent people, because in most cases the employees don't have the authority to make & meet commitments that small business owners do. (e.g., "You can go ahead and buy that printer and I'll fix it if it breaks and we'll always have the toner cartridges" doesn't mean much from a random minimum-wage monkey at OfficeMonster, but coming from someone you grew up with, it has some value .. even if you can get the same printer for $50 less at the Monster or by mail order.)

[ Parent ]

Also internal to organizations... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by HypoLuxa on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:34:35 PM EST

In addition to the relationships outside of an organization developed by these kinds of activities, there are often important relationships within and organization. This was one of the important arguments about equal access to golf clubs for women (and yes, I know how dumb of an argument that sounds like). If your boss tends to listen to, mentor, inform, and promote his golfing buddies better, then your career is being limited if you cannot become one of his golfing buddies.

And before you toss this out as old school thinking, I'll remind you that I still know several people (both men and women) who are regular golfers and hate the game. My sister learned how to play golf so she can socialize with her husbands co-workers and spouses.

--
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
- Leonard Cohen
[ Parent ]

good point (4.00 / 1) (#73)
by gbroiles on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:28:42 PM EST

.. but the real limit is still people's openness to social interaction with others, not so much the mechanical aspects of access to the golf course. If the boss doesn't want to play golf with you or doesn't perceive you as a peer or worthy successor, that's the root of the problem; there's no EEOC in people's brains making them color-blind or gender-blind. We can use law or social pressure to force people to pretend to be unprejudiced, but it's much harder to change people's real beliefs, and the actions they take based upon them.

[ Parent ]
I agree, but .... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by HypoLuxa on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:51:08 PM EST

There is some validity to the argument that a lot of prejudicial beliefs have nothing to do with a hatred of some otherness, but a genuine lack of interaction and understanding. I've met people who aren't mean spirited, but who say all kinds of mean things simply because they don't know any better. These kind of barriers tend to break down quickly when you spend time with someone you perceive as being "other" doing the things you enjoy. The otherness gets replaced by sameness, and prejudice starts to disappear.

Also, my first comment was not to say that as soon as the club says you are OK to be on the course, that you are going to be in with your boss and everything is going to work out fine. What I'm saying is that while that access can only give you a chance, not a guarantee, of those kind of benefits, denying access can guarantee you won't get them.

--
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
- Leonard Cohen
[ Parent ]

You can't be serious (4.33 / 3) (#47)
by clarkcox3 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:27:19 PM EST

1.) The journalist's (W.R.) correspondent who said being female and being black are both a matter of biology is wrong. Men and women are biologically distinct. Race is purely a social construct. There is no black chromosome.

Are you honestly suggesting that there is no genetic component of skin color? My father is black because his parents were black. My mother is white because her parents were white. I am about halfway in between, because one of my parents is black, and the other is white. Genetics are the only reason that I have the color skin that I have.

If there is no genetic component, then why don't white people have black babies?



[ Parent ]
No, that's not what he's suggesting. (4.00 / 4) (#50)
by Kwil on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:41:02 PM EST

He's suggesting that there's no definable genetic point where "white" becomes "black".

Or in essence, there are lots of shades of brown, but not too many shades of balls. Y'either have'em or you don't.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Um (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by ghjm on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:17:41 PM EST

Some people are born with one, or a non-functioning set of various types, or penis & balls plus female apparatus, or God knows what else. Most people have XX or XY chromosomes but some people have XXY. Admittedly these are very small percentages of people but they do exist in sizeable numbers.

Also, if the argument about skin color is that yes, there is a genetically determined basis for your skin color, but any inference from skin color to behavior / social status / etc. is socially created, then it must also be true that even if balls were "you have 'em or you don't" it would also be true that all behavioral / social status / etc. implications of gender are also socially created.

-Graham

[ Parent ]

No, that argument is a non-sequitur (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by porp on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 03:57:43 AM EST

Skin color has hardly any behavioral implications. It may mean that darker skinned people can withstand more sunlight, but that's really about it. The rest is cultural. On the other hand, gender has a large contribution to our behavior: what ratio of testosterone/estrogen/androgen is released, what our mathematical, language, and spatial reasoning potential is, how much body fat we have, etc, etc. Of course there is a socially created role for gender. But there is a much larger contribution of genetics at play in comparison with skin color.

[ Parent ]
Genes and color (5.00 / 4) (#53)
by mmealman on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:04:28 PM EST

Genes also control eye color and hair color, but just as it's absurd to distinguish people based purely on eye color it's equally absurd to distinguish based on skin color.

Of course skin color can denote an ancestoral regional origin, aka "African American", but really even to categorize someone like that has as much value as calling me an "Irish American" because I have green eyes.

I guess it's the intent of the distintion more than anything. If I wanted to form an "Irish American" only club, based on people from an Irish heritage, it wouldn't be wrong to reject an "African American" candidate. It would be wrong to reject a man just because he had black skin though, because for all we know he was born and raised in Ireland.

That's one reason why a whites-only club differs from a men-only club. It's the intent behind the exlusion and whether or not that exlusion is based upon real differences. In many instances sex is a valid difference(how many female pro football players do we have?), in some it always isn't(Canada has a female pro hockey player), but skin color isn't something our society considers valid under almost any circumstance.

[ Parent ]
Mmm... OREO (2.50 / 2) (#152)
by parasite on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 10:42:57 AM EST


To bad you'z not a woman, thing! Cuz Oreos sure go dipped well in the chocolate milk!!!!!! Soak'em up 'till they nice and soggy, and crunch'em down!

[ Parent ]
Raspberry and Exclusion (4.28 / 7) (#42)
by epepke on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 02:18:40 PM EST

I love William Raspberry. He's one of the few columnists who can actually think as opposed to generating mere rhetoric in defense of a party line. I had the good fortune of seeing him give a talk once, and he was fascinating.

I have to say, though, that all groups are defined by their boundaries, that is, by the people they exclude.

Boundaries do, however, have a degree of hardness. Examples:

At MIT, there was a fraternity called ZBT, which was the Jewish fraternity back when there was a Jewish quota. Now that there is no quota, there isn't any formal or informal exclusion of non-Jews. The main kitchen isn't even kosher, but they do have a kosher "sub-kitchen," and one of my Jewish friends pledged that fraternity for that reason.

There's a university in town called FAMU, which is historically black. Excellent state school; it has one of the finest pharmacy departments in the country, and they've had robot competitions in engineering for at least 20 years now. The boundary is very soft, though. There's no formal exclusion of people who aren't black and little if any informal exclusion. It's just that, being historically black, black people from all over the country seek to go there.

In contrast, I once met a woman in Atlanta. (I only met about a half a dozen people during my two years in Atlanta--it's hard to meet people there, which is part of why I'm not there any more.) It was great; we wound up talking for about six hours that night. She attended some historically black college; I forget the name. She talked about getting an incredible amount of flack for choosing to do a project in one humanities course on a white author. I imagine that a student who was white wouldn't be treated very well there. That's a much harder, though still informal boundary.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


2 coppers (4.33 / 3) (#58)
by nghtsngr on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:36:37 PM EST

I fully agree that descriminating against an individual by race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, etc etc is morally wrong. The question is, when does the act of exclusion become discrimination. College honor societies exclude members with low GPAs. Is this an unfair practice? I do not believe so. Nor do I believe that having separate bathrooms is unfair. Should the Boyscouts be abolished as an outdated idea that children find different activities entertaining based on their gender? Should the scouts be merged into a Youthscout? I don't really have the answer. I think in the final analysis, a private recreational organization should have the right to determine its membership. The Bellpullers association of america should not have to admit those who don't pull bells. The second any association ceases to be recreational (IE unimportant for career advancement, social acceptance, or personal wellbeing) or receives any kind of public or governmental support, their ranks should be open to all. Course, thats just what I think. I could be wrong. nghtsngr

I think.. (4.33 / 3) (#59)
by TheEldestOyster on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 04:54:33 PM EST

... that only descrimination based on factors which cannot be helped is wrong. So hating someone purely because they're black or a woman, etc. is wrong, but restricting membership based on GPA is fine and good, because GPA depends ultimately on the person themself.

As for the Boy/Girl Scouts, I don't think that the idea that certain genders find different things entertaining, but I also think that gender is not necessarily based on sex. Is there something wrong with a girl who wants to do "boy" things? On that basis, I think the scouts should be reorganized so that they're called more by the activity than the intended membership, and allow both sexes.
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]

Gender Roles. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Korimyr the Rat on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:54:43 PM EST

 I ascribe pretty seriously to the idea of "real man" and "real woman"-- qualities that are ideal for each gender.

 But, as far as I can see, a "real man" has more in common with a "real woman" than a person of either gender who doesn't meet those standards. Largely, the ideals and values that scouting organizations should be imparting on young boys are the same ideals and values they should be imparting on young girls.

 With that in mind, the activities assigned to one gender or another tend to be arbitrary, and in the past several decades have become less code-bound and more a matter of individual preference. I don't see how combining them into one unified organization could do much harm-- with the exception, possibly, of co-ed camping when the Scouts start heading into puberty.

 The argument about Scoutmasters (or their equivalent in the Girl Scouts-- anyone?) of opposite gender is largely the same as the argument about homosexual Scoutmasters (an issue that is largely ignored in the Girl Scouts)-- a nonissue. Abuse will be largely kept to a minimum because most adults are not abusive and the values of Scouting are not compatible with such abuse-- the few exceptions can either be excluded or caught with the same kind of safeguards we already use to keep dangerous criminals away from children.

--
"Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'
[ Parent ]

Not really (4.00 / 2) (#81)
by levesque on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:16:35 PM EST

restricting membership based on GPA is fine and good, because GPA depends ultimately on the person themself.

There are all kinds of mental handicaps that come in all degrees of severity and varity and no amount of personnal effort will get you beyound a certain point. A GPA potential ceiling that cannot be helped is the norm.

[ Parent ]

Recreational or not? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by kestrel13 on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:12:29 PM EST

Well, how do you tell if an association ceases to be recreational and starts being for career advancement or personal wellbeing or whatever? I personally was a girl scout for many years and earned my gold award (equivalent of an eagle scout), and when I was applying to colleges the fact that I had earned my gold award gave me points with the college admissions people and possibly could have helped me get into the schools I wished to go to. I think that would count as career advancement. While the girl scouts don't have the same restrictive admissions policies as the boy scouts do (I know both homosexual and atheist girl scouts, including one atheist who leads a brownie troop), it is possible that for a boy being barred from joining boy scouts because of his sexual orientation or religious belief, his inability to earn his eagle scout award or other honor could impede his "career advancement" in some way.

[ Parent ]
"another conversation" (4.77 / 9) (#66)
by I am Jack's username on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 05:52:17 PM EST

education should be open to anyone who can and wants to learn
Do you reject discrimination based on wealth? Should a penniless person, with the same intellectual abilities, be allowed the same opportunity to go to university as someone rich.

"People with advantages are loath to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages." - C. Wright Mills, The power elite
--
Inoshiro for president!
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

Uh... yes, of course. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by LukeyBoy on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:43:56 PM EST

In Ontario, Canada we have a government program called OSAP that provides "fiscally challenged" students with loans necessary to go to school.

I'm from a small town in northern Ontario far away from any large cities, and the economy there is horrible compared to Toronto. Thanks to OSAP though, kids from my town are able to attend pretty much any school they wish - assuming their grades are up to the standards of course. Once graduated, they can pay back the OSAP loan at a fairly minimal interest rate.

[ Parent ]

Uhhhh. Yeah. (4.00 / 2) (#93)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:26:08 PM EST

Seeing how I worked my way through college, I have no problem with that at all.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

Yes. (4.00 / 2) (#95)
by Anonymous 7324 on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:50:45 PM EST

Need-based and merit-based scholarships, loans, and work-study, from someone who receives aid all of the above.

[ Parent ]
gay pride parades? (3.33 / 6) (#71)
by heng on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:24:54 PM EST

Related in an indirect way is the issue of gay pride parades. How does a gay pride parade differ from a white pride parade? Or a wear pink fluffy underpants on christmas day pride parade? It is such an arbitrary thing to have a parade about it's almost laughable. But for some reason it's politically correct to be anti-homophobic, so it's not the done thing to speak out about these things.

I do *not* speak from a homophobic perspective, simply pointing out farcical logic that society seems to take most of the time.

because gays didnt rise up and kill all whites (2.50 / 2) (#88)
by turmeric on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:08:05 PM EST

like the white power people have done to the gays

[ Parent ]
It's the celebration of victimhood. (3.33 / 3) (#92)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:25:22 PM EST

And the basic idea that you should demand that everyone else endorse your life.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

I went to a gay pride parade once (5.00 / 3) (#98)
by crazycanuck on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:17:07 PM EST

nobody tried to lynch me cause I wasn't gay

I wouldn't say the same thing about a black/jewish guy going to a white pride parade.

[ Parent ]

I would... (none / 0) (#169)
by rtechie on Tue Nov 12, 2002 at 01:02:52 PM EST

nobody tried to lynch me cause I wasn't gay

I wouldn't say the same thing about a black/jewish guy going to a white pride parade

Generally speaking counter-protestors outnumber the white pride people about 3 to 1 at such events (unless the organizers of the event keep an extremely low profile). Not including the armies of cops.

In fact, I can't think of an event where you are generally LESS likely to be lynched.

[ Parent ]

I've never been to a gay pride parade. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:51:08 PM EST

So I can't speak from personal experience. I have, however, attended a "white pride" parade once. It seems that the main difference is that while almost all white pride parades encourage active hatred, a gay pride parade tries to encourage tolerance, if not acceptance.

I suppose that part of the reason that gay pride celebrations exist is to reaffirm one's status in the community, and the nation as a whole. To be homosexual in the US was/is (depending on your location) to be ridiculed, mocked, and generally hated, based solely on the arbitrary matter of one's sexual preference. A natural response from the gay community would be to coordinate such activities as parades and whatnot, to basically assure like-minded individuals that it was indeed "okay" to be homosexual, and should actually be nurtured and celebrated.

I suppose though that I have one problem with gay pride parades. It further draws out that culture of victimization that homosexuals have suffered under. Being gay should not be nurtured or celebrated, or something to be proud of; one's sexual preference really shouldn't matter. In other words, sexual preference should be made a non-issue, something that most folks just shouldn't care about (like eye color or something).

I'm reminded of an old "Kids in the Hall" sketch, where the main character sings, "I'm gay! Hooray!" I have a good number of gay friends like that, who feel like they must constantly draw attention to their sexual preference, instead of just accepting the behavior as something normal. I suspect that the way that popular media portrays gay people (think Will and Grace) has something to do with this.

You know, I was going somewhere with this. Sorry for rambling.
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

curious.. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by molo on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:57:17 PM EST

I have, however, attended a "white pride" parade once.

I'm just curious about this.  Where?  Why?  To oppose or support those views?.

I suspect that the way that popular media portrays gay people (think Will and Grace) has something to do with this.

I think that until the last ~10 years, the popular media didn't portray gays at all.  People have been "flamingly" gay for a lot longer than that.

I generally agree though, that gays tend to call attention to their sexuality excessively.

-molo

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
[ Parent ]

Humans are pattern seeking animals. That's all. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by derobert on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 01:29:51 AM EST

I think you just notice gay people showing the sexuality more because it is an oddity[0]; just like you notice a yellow car more than a dark red one. Humans observe patterns --- and deviations from those patterns stand out a lot.

You don't notice much when a male makes an advance on a female or vice versa because it's the pattern you are used to. Look carefully --- how many times do you see a heterosexual couple kissing, hugging, etc.? How often do you see a guy, umm, assessing a woman? Count them. Count the number of times you see a homosexual equivelant. I bet the count of the former far exeeds the latter.

And then, try and remember how many of each you saw yesterday, or the week before. I bet you remember a lot more of the gay ones than the strait ones. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't remember noticing a single heterosexual couple hugging from the previous week, yet you'll remember a gay one (if you saw one, that is).

This doesn't mean that you're a bigot or anything of the sort. It just means that you --- like (almost) all other humans --- seek patterns, and notice disparities. Studies show the same results with just about any pattern.

[0] I intend absolutely no moral judgement by this; read it as a statistical term only.

[ Parent ]

I completely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:50:17 AM EST

Well, almost, anyway. But have you ever been around a predominantly homosexual community?

I raise that question because I started noticing this behavior when I attended Berkeley, and have been noticing it since I moved to Chicago. I hardly notice when a homosexual couple is hugging or holding hands; to me, that just falls within the parameters for normal behavior. Since I was young, my parents taught me that sexuality is a non-issue; something that just isn't important to a person's worth, so to speak.

But I started to notice that more and more of the homosexual men that I associated with had rather "effeminate" traits, or were developing such traits. We all know the stereotype here - the walk, the voice pitch, the hand gestures, etc.. I even witnessed a friend grow from acting like a fairly "normal" male (albeit with a different sexual preference than most males) to a stereotypical "gay" man over the course of a few years.

I understand that stereotypes are always grounded in some sort of truth. I believe that in an ideal society, where negative stereotypes were not projected onto minorities on a daily basis, that some homosexual men would act in the stereotypical "flaming" manner, but that most others would fall into the realm of what we would consider, for the most part, normal. However, my experiences have shown me that in the real world, the opposite is true. As such, I'm inclined to believe that it's the media's protrayal of homosexual men that have led many gay men to act in such a manner.

However, these are just my own personal experiences, and I have never done any extensive research into the matter. Has anyone else familiar with the homosexual community noticed similar trends, or is my experience fairly isolated?

Jesus. I hope that made sense. I've been rambling all night long, and I'm a wee bit drunk at the moment, so I'm not exactly sure if what I just wrote was coherent. My apologies if it wasn't, or if any parts weren't clear.
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

I get ya (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by cts on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 07:09:19 AM EST

Dirty Liberal Scumbag,

I really think that the stereotypical "flaming" manner is a necessary role. Their has to be a little advertisement of sexuality if you hope to find a "mate". The rest of us do it too, but you probably don't notice as much. Plus there is a feminine/masculine interaction happening here so "normal" would be a little different. My "homosexual community" knowledge comes from a few friends, an old boss (I wouldn't have caught on, execpt he used the term "ex-lover" exclusively for an eight year relationship), and of course, Savage Love.

I do notice the tight mini-skirt as an advertisement of sexuality, but that rarely annoys me. :) Also, I've given up pretending to know who is straight or not, I have no "gaydar" what so ever. I try to be surprised every time.

P.S.
I passed a wee bit drunk a while ago. I have no idea why I'm still up. Stupid friday night lasting until saturday morning. Time to do dishes.

[ Parent ]

You know... (4.00 / 1) (#133)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 01:56:03 PM EST

...you're right. Funny how Occam's razor can apply to nearly every aspect of life.

Apologies for my academic obtuseness. It's rather sad that in the search for knowledge such simple (and correct) answers are often overlooked.
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

I am an anti-semetic half-asian White Supremacist. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
by Dirty Liberal Scumbag on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:20:36 AM EST

Actually, I used to live down in Alabama for awhile, in a predominantly (read:ALL) white neighborhood. I was pretty comfortable down there, despite my the fact that I am half-asian (the other half Italian) because most of the people were really nice and, despite getting stared at for being an oddity of sorts, generally friendly and cordial.

However, there was one time when I went to a neighboring town to do scrounge around in some thrift stores. What I didn't know was that some white supremacist group (can't remember which one right now; this was a couple of years ago) was holding some sort of rally there or something. There weren't that many supporters there, save for the ones that followed the thing from town to town; most of the people there were just more curious than anything else, and the rally was met with mostly cries of "bigot!" and the like.

I do remember, though, that despite the speaker stressing that they were not a violent group, he might as well have been shouting "deport (or kill) all 'em jews and niggers from the country, it's all their fault" as loud as he could. Basically, he was playing the blame game; it's all their fault that the country was in the shits, they have no place here, etc. etc.. While I really wanted to staple-gun his mouth shut, I ended up defending his right to speak, when the townspeople (hell, even the police were looking irked) were about to lynch the bastard. Got a lot of weird looks that day from everybody, probably because I could have been classified as one of "them".

Hmm. Rambling again. Anyhow, while I haven't lived long enough to associate with gay people back before they were accepted into the general media, I think it's safe to say that before the blatantly stereotypical behavior became popularized, most homosexuals probably acted fairly "normal" (within traditional social folkways, more or less). Only the more blatant homosexuals in the past are remembered because they were the most flamboyant, and stuck in the national consciousness. I refuse to believe that the gay male stereotype just comes naturally, and yet I've met way too many homosexual men that would fit the category of "flaming" (although it's certainly not the rule). I think it falls into an old rule of sociology - if the group in power presents a minority to a certain stereotype long enough, they will begin to fit the mold and emulate that stereotype.
---

I am now whatever you wish me to be to excuse your awesomeness.
[ Parent ]

Parades (4.00 / 1) (#134)
by mmealman on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:01:22 PM EST

Well, for one that's a bad example because we DO allow white pride parades. It's not like we allow gay parades, but not white ones.

But parades are traditionally about showing solidarity. Gay parades aren't about gays being better than straights, it's about standing forth in the community in a way that says, "we're here and we're equal". So they're more accepted than the "we hate blacks and jews" white parades.

[ Parent ]
gay pride (none / 0) (#172)
by jefu on Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 06:51:44 PM EST

A comment on "gay pride", parades, being openly gay to annoy the straight folks around and all that...

I'm a gay man and the Stonewall riots (which really were the event that catalyzed the whole "coming out" and being openly gay movement) occurred just after I graduated from high school, and I see nothing wrong with parades, or being openly, even aggressively openly gay. I lived my adolescence in terror. If anyone found out I was gay, I was sure I'd be beaten up very badly, tossed out of my family and so on. I felt absolutely alone and very much at risk.

I could not talk about my sexuality, had to lie about half of what I felt, had to lie in behavior by trying to appear straight and date even when it was not just uninteresting, but actively abhorrent.

Not at all without reason. I knew no gay people then so would have had nowhere to go for help, and the one time I tried to hint of how I was feeling to someone the response was sufficiently negative that I went to further.

But since then I've seen more, read more, heard more. I know of gay teens who have been beaten by their peers or their parents, tossed out of their families (or who've run away) - usually to end up on the streets, and the like. I know of more who lived in fear as I did - or often worse.

Today, in times that you might call enlightened, suicide in gay teens is estimated to be several times that in straight teens (I know, very hard to get accurate statistics). Gay teens are still chased from their homes or pushed to run away by intolerance in family, school and (especially) church - and, far too often still, end up selling themselves on the streets.

And while it was bad back then and has improved much, it has not improved as much as you might want to believe. Not long ago I ran into a situation where a father told his son that either the son would be straight, or that he'd be dead. Or there was the man who said that he say nothing at all wrong with gay people committing suicide because they were gay. (Imagine how his son, who I happen to know is gay, feels about his father.)

Is it any wonder that when people escape from this that they respond with what some might consider overdoing it?

It used to be "Its OK if you're gay, just why do you have to flaunt it so? "Flaunting it" was often saying, "Sorry, but I'm going with my partner to ..." to someone who had just spent a half hour or so talking about husband and family.

(There are other factors as well, but lacking a book's worth of typing energy, I'll just leave you to imagine them. )

[ Parent ]

What are old men afraid of? (3.60 / 5) (#72)
by quasipalm on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:25:18 PM EST

I think private clubs should be able to do what they want. But, I just can't figure out why it's so important to old white men to have a place to go where women cannot. Why are they afraid of women?

You know, I've been to a few gay clubs where there is only one bathroom for men and women patrons... And it's not a big deal. In one, the urinal was out front and then the stalls (fully closeable) where along the back wall. After an initial discomfort, I realized that it isn't a big deal at all. So, if I can pee in front of women in public, why can't these old guys smoke cigars, play golf, and drink beers with their female peers?

I remember when the Bush administration kept on talking about how important it was to have women in the new Afghan government. Yet, here in the US, our government is still almost completely male. The hypocrisy of it all was so obvious.


(hi)
old men afraid of women (3.50 / 2) (#74)
by bolthole on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:35:37 PM EST

I think you missed the point of the "clubs". Its not that the "old boys" 'cant' do those things with women. It is that they DONT WANT TO. To put things another way, if you [hypothetical you] are afflicted with the common american yearly NFL craze, and you want to go to some sports bar and yell and get rowdy... are you going to take your wife/SO? Wuld you LIKE to? Do you think SHE would like to? THe answer to all of these questions is most likely "no". The only thing that would even raise the issue of her coming, would be if she somehow discovered that you also planned to get together with the other men at the bar and arrange to buy yourself a new porche this year, but your wife gets to drive the old beat-up VW bug.

[ Parent ]
Big Difference (4.50 / 2) (#82)
by LukeyBoy on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:25:49 PM EST

I think there's a large difference between not inviting your significant other to a sporting night at a bar, and the bar banning women altogether.

[ Parent ]
Right. (4.25 / 4) (#91)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:24:16 PM EST

In the former case, there's a risk a woman might show up. In the latter case, you can be sure no one will be complaining about your language and behaviour.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

Jesus... (none / 0) (#175)
by quasipalm on Thu Nov 14, 2002 at 05:32:41 PM EST

Why do you care if women are there "complaining about your language and behavior?" Is it really a big enough of a deal to expect the bar to ban women?<bt>
(hi)
[ Parent ]
Old White Men (5.00 / 6) (#108)
by I Robot on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:48:00 AM EST

When I was a little boy, no one thought ill of me if I preferred to hang out with other litte boys doing little boy things. I was, in fact, heavily discouraged from playing with the little girls. Even as a young teen, I mostly hung out with other young teen males. We rode our bikes together, eyed the girls passing by together, talked about owning a car someday. Now I am an "old white man" and you are trying to tell me who I can and cannot have as friends ... who I must associate with and under what circumstances. I spend a lot of time with my wife becuase I enjoy being around her. But I don't try to keep her from spending time off with her female friends and she is smart enough to recognize that I do about 95-98% of my socializing with her ... not to begrudge me spending the rest of that time either alone or in the company of other men. I think women fantasize that we are going to lock them out of a business deal. Well, we might. Like it or not, we still have that right. But most probably business men are simply looking for a good return on their investments and will do business with anyone and anything who can provide that good return. No, most likely we are talking about eating a lot of cooked tomatoes to avoid prostate cancer

[ Parent ]
OWM (reprise) (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by I Robot on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 03:13:23 AM EST

"I think private clubs should be able to do what they want. But, I just can't figure out why it's so important to old white men to have a place to go where women cannot. Why are they afraid of women?"

I am an "old white man".

Your very question is presumptious and should never have been asked.

What makes you think I am afraid of women? What makes you think I am motivated by fear at all? I certainly don't fear you.

Fear is no part of the equation. I do not fear women or blacks or queers and cannot understand why anyone would fear a bunch of old white men getting together to build friendships and discuss trivia over coffee.Can you? Do you go to gay clubs because you are afraid to hang out with straight people? That's exactly the sort of presumtion you have made about me.

Let's get my credentials straight. I am an old white man. My wife is both female and black. I used to run with the queer crowd and also (in a previous marriage) had a membership in a couples swing club. I've lost two friends to "gay cancer". I have drowned and, in drowning, completely lost my fear of death.When death doesn't scare someone, there is very little else that does. Certainly not women. Wherever you want to go with this discussion, I've been there, done that. Any drug worth using I figured was worth abusing. So I did. I have changed diapers and I have murdered with my bare hands and would do both again if need arose. The baby thought I'd done a good job. The man, my own size and age, saw me coming and still never got a chance to take a swing. He thought I did a good job too, though he never got around to congratulating me. I have done high-precision metalwork out to 6 decimal places and I have tossed a fusee in the back seat of a car trying to run me down as I protected a RR crossing. I have been both a Satanic priest and an ordained Christian Minister.I have been a member of SME and a computer applications instructor for three years. I have a high-school diploma. I have lifted over twice my weight and I have been paralyzed. I am currently a free-lance writer of technical reviews but my book of daily meditations is in its 15th printing.

I don't go in the queer clubs and disturb them and I don't crash the party over at the League of Women Voters or NAACP love-ins. What is your problem that you don't want me to cultivate a straight friendship with another "old white man" over a cup of coffee?

Hmmmm?

The problem really IS yours. You want tolerance for your ideas but refuse to tolerate mine.

I am still married and my wife and I are still in good health. But a lot of the men my age are either widowed or divorced. For a wide variety of reasons, their prospects for future romantic relationships are pretty bleak. Their families have, in many cases, moved hundreds of miles away. I have two sons and the closest is 900 miles away. Many of the others are in the same boat. If we "old white men" don't talk to each other who would we talk to? Not you ... we don't run in your social circles and you don't run in ours. You won't offer a hand in friendship because then you would realize that we were pushed off the shelf prematurely to make room for you.

And now you want to tell us we can't have simple friendships either.

Blow it out your ear, thweetie.


[ Parent ]

tolerate this (none / 0) (#178)
by lithmonkey on Sun Nov 24, 2002 at 12:50:22 PM EST

The problem really IS yours. You want tolerance for your ideas but refuse to tolerate mine.

...snip...

Blow it out your ear, thweetie.
...and from quasipalm:
I think private clubs should be able to do what they want. But, I just can't figure out why it's so important to old white men to have a place to go where women cannot. Why are they afraid of women?


Ok, now, who's being intolerant? Settle down, thweetie.

[ Parent ]
You're not a little boy anymore, grandpa. (none / 0) (#176)
by quasipalm on Thu Nov 14, 2002 at 05:38:33 PM EST

As as said in response to your other comment: You can be friends with whomever you want. Let's say, as an example, that your best beer-drinkin sports fan friend was a women. Hell, let's say that it was your wife. Wouldn't it bum you out if all of your friends were going to an all-male sports bar to watch the game?

Like I said, private clubs can do what they like, but I don't have to support it or be cool with it. In my mind, they should just relax and have an open-door policy.

And yes, I believe the same about women's clubs. And, for your information, lots of straight people go to gay bars and nobody cares. Part of being a grown-up is being cool with people that are different than you.
(hi)
[ Parent ]
why do you assume they're afraid of women? (5.00 / 5) (#110)
by misanthrope112 on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 01:50:29 AM EST

When women go out for a 'woman's night out' or whatever, no one assumes they're afraid of men.  Maybe the men just have better conversation when the women aren't around, or don't feel berated for wanting to talk about golf or whatever.  There is an assumption hidden deep inside your question, the same assumption, I think, that causes people to applaud all female-only organizations (schools, clubs, etc) but decry male-only organizations.  When women want to be away from men, it's because they find the absence of men liberating, refreshing, less intimidating, whatever, but when men want to be away from women, it's because men are 'afraid' of women, are conspiring to oppress them, or something similarly negative.  Maybe the men just find the women to be insipid harpies.   I know if I want to talk philosophy/politics/theology/anything meaningful with a friend, it's easier (usually) when women aren't around.  About 5% of the women I know, if that, want to talk about these things, and the others, for the most part, will make a point of rolling their eyes, letting out loud exasperated overacted sighs, etc, to show that they're consummately bored, and that therefore the conversation should move on.  Yes, I could ignore them, but the point is that it's easier, less stressful, to have an interesting conversation when they're not there.  This doesn't apply to the more intellectual women I know - they're a joy to talk to, but the bare fact that I find them so unlike other women is telling.  This rant doesn't apply directly to what you were asking, but I think I might have some inkling as to why some men, especially older men who aren't looking to hit on women or be hit on by women, might find a male-only club a pleasant refuge.

[ Parent ]
No, you're not representing me fairly. (none / 0) (#173)
by quasipalm on Thu Nov 14, 2002 at 05:22:44 PM EST

I certainly believe that the opposite is true also... That women should have the right to create women only clubs, but that it'd be better if they did not. I would ask them the same question, why is it really necessary?

I know if I want to talk philosophy/politics/theology/anything meaningful with a friend, it's easier when women aren't around. About 5% of the women I know, if that, want to talk about these things

Well, first off, I think there are some underlying issues with your blanket disregard for female intelligence. But, let's take your statement at face value. Even if only 5% of women want to "talk about anything meaningful," is it fair to ban them from partaking in the conversation because of their sex? Why should that %5 not be allowed to participate?
(hi)
[ Parent ]
I was just speaking from my experience (4.00 / 1) (#177)
by misanthrope112 on Fri Nov 15, 2002 at 04:03:17 AM EST

I don't have a blanket disregard for female intelligence.  I didn't say the women were stupid, but that they were insipid.  I know plenty of women who can ace a calculus test, which to me makes them intelligent, but they have zero interest in the things I most like to talk about.   I find most women to be shallow and flighty.  This is not an objective, definitive judgement, only my persoanl opinion.  I've met a few women who were intelligent, fascinating, and intellectually compatible with me.  They don't always find me as interesting as I find them, but hey, I can live with that, as long as I know they're out there.   I'm just thankful there are Janeane Garofalos in the world, even if I don't get to hang out with them.  It may be that I have unrealistic expectations of how intellectually stimulating a person should be.  It may be that just as many men as women are shallow and dull, but I'm not attracted to men, so them being vacuous doesn't bother me as much.  

As for the male-only or female-only clubs being 'necessary,' I don't think it's an issue of absolute necessity.  If men sometimes tire of female company, they should be allowed to have a refuge they can go to to talk about the stuff they want to talk about.  The same goes for women, I think.   Despite all the talk of 'inclusiveness,' I don't think people should be required to like one another 100% of the time.  We're human, after all.

[ Parent ]

Old White Men (4.70 / 10) (#116)
by I Robot on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 03:09:35 AM EST

"I think private clubs should be able to do what they want. But, I just can't figure out why it's so important to old white men to have a place to go where women cannot. Why are they afraid of women?"

I am an "old white man".

Your very question is presumptious and should never have been asked.

What makes you think I am afraid of women? What makes you think I am motivated by fear at all? I certainly don't fear you.

Fear is no part of the equation. I do not fear women or blacks or queers and cannot understand why anyone would fear a bunch of old white men getting together to build friendships and discuss trivia over coffee.Can you? Do you go to gay clubs because you are afraid to hang out with straight people? That's exactly the sort of presumtion you have made about me.

Let's get my credentials straight. I am an old white man. My wife is both female and black. I used to run with the queer crowd and also (in a previous marriage) had a membership in a couples swing club. I've lost two friends to "gay cancer". I have drowned and, in drowning, completely lost my fear of death.When death doesn't scare someone, there is very little else that does. Certainly not women. Wherever you want to go with this discussion, I've been there, done that. Any drug worth using I figured was worth abusing. So I did. I have changed diapers and I have murdered with my bare hands and would do both again if need arose. The baby thought I'd done a good job. The man, my own size and age, saw me coming and still never got a chance to take a swing. He thought I did a good job too, though he never got around to congratulating me. I have done high-precision metalwork out to 6 decimal places and I have tossed a fusee in the back seat of a car trying to run me down as I protected a RR crossing. I have been both a Satanic priest and an ordained Christian Minister.I have been a member of SME and a computer applications instructor for three years. I have a high-school diploma. I have lifted over twice my weight and I have been paralyzed. I am currently a free-lance writer of technical reviews but my book of daily meditations is in its 15th printing.

I don't go in the queer clubs and disturb them and I don't crash the party over at the League of Women Voters or NAACP love-ins. What is your problem that you don't want me to cultivate a straight friendship with another "old white man" over a cup of coffee?

Hmmmm?

The problem really IS yours. You want tolerance for your ideas but refuse to tolerate mine.

I am still married and my wife and I are still in good health. But a lot of the men my age are either widowed or divorced. For a wide variety of reasons, their prospects for future romantic relationships are pretty bleak. Their families have, in many cases, moved hundreds of miles away. I have two sons and the closest is 900 miles away. Many of the others are in the same boat. If we "old white men" don't talk to each other who would we talk to? Not you ... we don't run in your social circles and you don't run in ours. You won't offer a hand in friendship because then you would realize that we were pushed off the shelf prematurely to make room for you.

And now you want to tell us we can't have simple friendships either.

Blow it out your ear, thweetie.

[ Parent ]

That... (4.00 / 1) (#136)
by nustajeb on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:34:01 PM EST

was very eloquent.

[ Parent ]
thanks for putting words in my mouth... (none / 0) (#174)
by quasipalm on Thu Nov 14, 2002 at 05:29:11 PM EST

My comment suggested that men only clubs open themselves to women participants. Somehow, you managed to distort that into me telling you that you "can't have friendships either."

Uh, actually, I'm happy you have friends. And I'm sorry if you're as bitter an angry as your comment makes you seem. I think my comment was pretty simple, people shouldn't be afraid of people that are different then themselves. Why you took that comment so far out of context is a mystery to me.

P.s. What the fuck is up with this comment? Blow it out your ear, thweetie.

(hi)
[ Parent ]
Why is gender discrimination "less odious&quo (4.66 / 6) (#75)
by eodell on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:38:08 PM EST

I'm afraid I must have missed something here -- why would Mr. Raspberry feel that gender discrimination is less odious than racial discrimination? In the present era, on a worldwide basis, a person is more likely to be subjected to some really horrific forms of oppression on the basis of being female than on the basis of race. Whether it's relatively lightweight oppression like job discrimination (and the attendent poverty and increased mortality) or more serious stuff like genital mutilation, socially-sanctioned rape or slavery (often under the guise of "marriage"), easily half of the world's women live under conditions that Americans and Europeans have laws protect their dogs from. Many women in, say, Sudan or Swaziland or Pakistan would vastly improve their lot in life if they were magically transformed into black males in a U.S. penitentiary.

It's a truism that oppression looks better from a distance than when you are its target. Perhaps Mr. Raspberry should hang out in mixed company more.

It is not a matter of money or power... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by chanio on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:05:34 PM EST

If you realize that the more exploited countries are also the most poor and have so many discriminations that liberty is just a theory. You should realize also that discrimination diminishes authomatically when freedom's concience increases. And this happens when people learns that to improve and become a person they don't need to follow some instructions or imitate their neighbour, but just be creative. To separate one needs to live by thinking, not by feeling. And even if I lived by thinking, if I wasn't resentful I wouldn't need to say anything to anyone to keep myself apart. I would just pick up my club and move to a secret new place! Why is it so important to tell others that I don't want certain people close to me?
________________
Farenheit Binman:
This worlds culture is throwing away-burning thousands of useful concepts because they don't fit in their commercial frame.
My chance of becoming intelligent!
[ Parent ]
Why? (4.33 / 3) (#90)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:21:26 PM EST

I'm afraid I must have missed something here -- why would Mr. Raspberry feel that gender discrimination is less odious than racial discrimination?

Why would he think that? If you read the article, he explains the why pretty clearly. Whether or not he is right is a different matter.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

Women in america have it SOOOOO good. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by djmann88 on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 03:05:41 AM EST

"why would Mr. Raspberry feel that gender discrimination is less odious than racial discrimination"
easily half of the world's women live under conditions that Americans and Europeans have laws protect their dogs from. Many women in, say, Sudan or Swaziland or Pakistan would vastly improve their lot in life if they were magically transformed into black males in a U.S. penitentiary.

Actually, america thinks it is the best country in the world, but trust me, other people in other countries live happy lives too. The countries you mention are roughly equivalent, socially, economically,technologically, to 1950's america. (Do you know how women were discriminated against in america). Which cant be that bad, since most old women today dont complain about it.

For example, until the 1960's in a large proportion of america, a husband was considered his wifes legal guardian (infantilising women), so they couldnt own any property, get a drivers license, have a job, without getting the husbands permission. Usually the government and employers would ring up the husband first ( to check it was okay) before allowing the wife to do anything.

[ Parent ]

I have often wondered myself ... (4.72 / 11) (#76)
by omegadan on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:42:49 PM EST

The university I went to had a large asian population (around 40%)... most of the frats had been taken over by asians. Once or twice a week they handed out flyers for parties, events, etc ... I'm white, not *once* in four years did someone try to give me a flyer. Same with all my white friends. They used to advertise "asian only" events, dances, parties, etc ... I often wondered, what would happen if I organized and advertised a "white only" party?

In another case of PC gone awry, a few of my friends set up out in front of the university clock tower with score cards and rated the women that passed by. This was done to piss off the radical lesbians who for some reason had been holding demonstrations in front of the clock tower all week. As it turns out, they chose to do this activity on lesbian pride day. The lesbians accused the fraternity of sexual harassment, and the university responded by presenting the choice to the fraternity, either they could attend a sexual harassment workshop, or their fraternity would be banned. Obviously, they attended the workshop ... which consisted of an hour long video and a question and answer session afterwards. The video had a segment that demonstrated what sexual harassment was and wasn't, giving examples and counter examples. One of the examples was "rating women" was *not* sexual harassment.

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley

asian only dance party (4.66 / 3) (#114)
by djmann88 on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:55:29 AM EST

Actually, this means it is asian themed. Most of the fraternities and clubs which are 'asian' have lots of white people in them.

It means asian (asian american) culture, not race. This is similar to gay events, where at least 20-40% are straight girls and guys. Also Christian events, and christian schools (non-catholic schools anyway), there are alot of non christians.



[ Parent ]

mmmm no (4.00 / 1) (#135)
by omegadan on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:28:16 PM EST

could be... but I remember seeing banners that said "asian only dance" and "all asian dance"... theres no misreading that

Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
[ Parent ]

Well. (4.00 / 1) (#132)
by mindstrm on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 01:03:39 PM EST

They may have simply felt that most non-asians would not be interested.


[ Parent ]
I doubt it... (none / 0) (#166)
by rtechie on Tue Nov 12, 2002 at 12:48:17 PM EST

Well, I've seen much the same thing in California universities and it's definitely not an "Asian culture" event but an "Asian only" event. Around here many of the signs are written only in Asian languages (Cantonese, Korean, etc.) which serves to "disguise" the "Asian only" statements. I have personally be turned away from such events (presumably, for being white).

[ Parent ]
actually ending problems of racism (4.00 / 5) (#79)
by cronian on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 07:59:03 PM EST

Simply creating minority or women organizations isn't going to solve the problem. Neither is the admission into exclusive places. American culture is inherently both racist and sexist.

Historically, racism was created against black people to justify slavery and divide poor blacks and whites. The same can be said of sexism where men can be portrayed as being too feminine if they refuse to support war. Woman can also be blamed for problems like by those who are against abortion.

The only real solutions can come a change in both white culture and abolition of various organizations of entrenched power. I believe old boys networks don't need to be changed but eliminated.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism

Social Engineering Bad (4.00 / 1) (#139)
by bjlhct on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 07:01:25 PM EST

So, what, we aren't smart enough to run our lives. And the government is? It's ridiculous to say that people have to include everyone equally. Do you want the government having a police officer shove some blacks and women in to make sure your poker game meets the quota, and watch to make sure you're nice to them?
*

kur0(or)5hin - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

forced inclusion? (none / 0) (#179)
by cronian on Sun Dec 08, 2002 at 11:21:24 PM EST

Did you mean to reply to my earlier comment? I'm not saying that have to include people in anything. Rather, I am saying organizations should be run in a more transparent where promotions aren't done based on what happens at your private social club.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Yes, it would be nice... (3.00 / 4) (#83)
by xriso on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:29:20 PM EST

if my government stopped being racist and sexist. However, racism and sexism is in style right now. Ironically, the reason stated is that these programs encourage equality.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
Why it's sometimes okay (4.42 / 7) (#87)
by theantix on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 08:53:19 PM EST

There's a very good reason why certain groups are PC and others are frowned upon.  It depends on the purpose and function of the group, and most importantly the relative power of the group.  I'll explain what I mean.  

Let's take your examples of a black-only fraternity or a women's-only club for executives.  Why are these clubs formed?  Is the purpose of these clubs to exclude others, or to provide a safe haven from the people keeping them down?  I would say that these two examples are perfect illustrations of a response to discrimination, not groups that are trying to create more.  Also, what type of power do these groups hold?  Are they in a great majority and do they have the power to affect many others?

Now, let's take your average corporation in Western society.  Like it or not there is still a de facto "boys club" whose function is to exclude women.  The reason and methods of this are debatable, but the effect is not -- women working for most major corporations are at a huge disadvantage from this.  The functioning of this group keeps women out of widespread power in the modern corporate world.  Even worse is the relative power held by this group -- they hold all of the cards.  Of course this varies from country to country, but by and large men run large corporations.  Can you see how this type of club differs from the two clubs in the previous example?

Let's revisit the examples in a different context.  Let's say that you are attending school in  college heavily attended by african-americans and the power structure was clearly dominated by that.  Let's assume that in this hypothetical school there was racism of the inverse of what would normally be the case.  If a group of white students wanted to fight this oppression, I would not have a problem with them creating a white-only fraternity in defense of this.

Let's look at an area where men are in the minority, for example the nursing profession.  Nursing is traditionally dominated by women, and this still carries forward today to a large extent.   I'm not sure about the status of sexism in the nursing industry, but it's pretty clear that it would be okay for men to want to band together to prevent sexism if it were to appear.   The group in question doesn't really matter, but it has to be looked at in context of who wields the power and who is being excluded.

My point is that it depends on the focus of the group.  A group that excludes other could be okay if the purpose is self-defense and is facing the wrong end of the power stick.  A group that wields all the power and excludes all others for the purpose of maintaining that exclusion is BAD.

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!

pc or racist? (none / 0) (#150)
by sal5ero on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 10:44:16 PM EST

If a group of white students wanted to fight this oppression, I would not have a problem with them creating a white-only fraternity in defense of this.

Neither would I. But the question is would it still be generally considered PC or racist in the larger community?



[ Parent ]
Wrong Way. (4.76 / 13) (#89)
by bjlhct on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:19:53 PM EST

Wrong way.

So you noticed that there are different standards for these organizations than there is for businesses. You seem to end up with the conclusion that this should be banned. But I end up at the opposite conclusion.

  1. All races are equally guilty of racism.
  2. The income gap between women and men more or less disappears when women behave like men. (As in not having kids, etc.)
  3. Sometimes "equality" is actually the opposite. In the military, they often have lower standards for women. Much lower in some cases. And the easier training to accomodate the women makes it less useful for the men. See, being in the infantry consists mostly of carrying a pack that weighs as much as you while you hike all day. It is a known fact that men are better at this. Different standards is not equality.
  4. Race or gender "quotas" are bad. This means that these places actually have to try harder and do special things to recruit black people or whatever. This means that they aren't taking the most qualified people. Not only this, but as many things do, it has consequences many people don't realize.
  5. I also don't like "multiculturalism." From what I have seen of it, it consists of hiring actors to pretend to be some group and do their thing, and bringing lots of little kids so they can see how weird those foreigners are. It reduces groups to this kind of curiosity and makes people expect them to be different. And this is political correctness.
If there's a racism/sexism/*ism problem, the solution is not laws. It's smarter people. Support better public education. I'm drowning in stupidity back in the Real World.
*

kur0(or)5hin - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism

Income gap vs. salary gap (3.50 / 4) (#113)
by Lynoure on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 02:48:10 AM EST

I'm move concerned about the salary gap (the salary difference of a man and a woman doing same work and having same kind of professional background).

Does the society when want to be compelty childfree?
Voluntary Movement for Human Extinction will be overjoyed.


[ Parent ]

Brave New World? (4.00 / 2) (#138)
by bjlhct on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 06:54:31 PM EST

What I'm saying is that that's part of the price women pay for having kids.

Well, the thing is that raising a kid is a lot harder than having one. Men work and women stay at home more than the reverse. While it's mostly culture, I'd go as far as to say there's some tendency in people for things to go that way. Meh, flame away.

But there is a solution to your problem: have kids raised by the government. No more disadvantaged kids. No more income gap. Brave New World, eventually. Just remember, the consumerist aspect of Huxley's society is crap.
*

kur0(or)5hin - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Having kids raised by the government (4.50 / 2) (#144)
by xriso on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 11:02:21 PM EST

I think that this would be pretty tough to implement. The people who raise kids these days don't exactly want to give up their lucrative market of TV ads targeted at children. It's pretty hard to get "there" from "here".
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 2) (#145)
by bjlhct on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 12:40:28 AM EST

I'm [not http://www.ars-acustica.com/English%20version/Career%20matters/mickeymouseandco. html] so sure.
*

kur0(or)5hin - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
[ Parent ]

Women are the only ones with kids? (none / 0) (#171)
by acs213 on Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 04:13:00 PM EST

Why do women pay this price for being mothers, but men don't pay the same price for being fathers? Men can't give birth to a child, but pregnancy/childbirth requires only a few months.

As you said, raising a kid is a lot harder than having one. Usually it is helpful to have two people to raise the kid(s). Women still often take primary responsibilty for childrearing, partly because we do not expect the same level of involvement from men. Men are not expected to leave work to care for a sick child, so women have to do it.

Male top executives have been fathering children for years, and no one seems to think it has to affect their salaries or career options. Why must it affect women's? When men take equal responsibility for raising the children they father, then women will be more able to close the salary gap in their professional lives.

[ Parent ]

It's all about the numbers (3.60 / 5) (#96)
by Perianwyr on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:53:03 PM EST

If you want to start a group for your friends, hyperspecialize. Don't start a "White Students' College Fund", start a "Scottish Highland Society Scholarship" or "Ukrainian-American Endowment" or something.

Remember that "black" organizations can only exist because "black" is considered a small enough category to organize around- likewise "asian", "hispanic", etc.

White is too damn big a category, and the fact of the matter is that if you start a "White Hackers Society", you'll get two responses: "Racist" and "Redundant". The assumption stems from one idea- because whites make up 75% of the US population, they are the default group for any organization. It's not very special if you make a "whites only" organization, and therefore other motives are assumed (hatred, for one.) The assumption when you make a group based around a perceived minority is that you're specializing enough to make it be a leg up, not a push down. Is this logically sound? Not absolutely. But if you think of it in terms of whether such a group would seem redundant, that's really the heart of the matter and the basis of most concerns.

Women are a minority too. [nt] (none / 0) (#111)
by xriso on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 01:56:10 AM EST


--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Women, a minority? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by screwdriver on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:25:49 PM EST

Are you quite sure of that?  According to the CIA factbook the male/female ratio is 0.96 in the USA.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

[ Parent ]

I was joking of course. (none / 0) (#141)
by xriso on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 10:28:20 PM EST

Perianwyr was saying that it's okay to make exclusive clubs for minorities only. Thus, because women-only clubs are okay, women must be a minority.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
It has to do with wealth (5.00 / 6) (#97)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 09:58:41 PM EST

It's not acceptable to discriminate if the group that practices it has something that outsiders want. Further more, it is the nature of the exclusive group to desire the exclusivity to keep its goods to itself.

Sounds cruel and brutal, doesn't it?

Apply it to political institutions and you'll find it operates the same way. The Magna Carta was designed to tie the kings hands in certain situations. The king discriminates based on royal blood. The gentry wanted the king's power. And yet, although power had been snatched from the king, this was kept by the nobility and not shared with the whole of England. That had to occur with the formation of the House of Commons to face off against the House of Lords.

It did not matter whether the nobility had a right to power, the commoners would find whatever argument it could in order to legitimize the rule of the masses. Divine Right of Kings had no chance against masses that were motivated to take away power. They came up with some good arguments for it, too, ones with which I agree. However, is my agreement subject to it being true, or to a bias because I benefit under that scheme?

As long as whites in America are perceived as having something that is denied to non-whites, then no white-only organization is free from threat. This is true for all groups that are perceived as having a good not granted outside the community, be they male or Catholic. Christianity is an excellent example, IMO; there's a huge bias arrayed against Catholicism probably because the Church maintains a measure of authority, and possibly because it is still relatively wealthy. Compare Catholicism to any spiritualist movement and the differences of antagonism are extreme.

Is it right for the Boy Scouts to exclude a non-Christian? No, says the masses, because the Boy Scouts has something that we want, even if it has always contained a religious element in its charter. It's selfishness on all sides.

Population and disparity is the actual measurement, not reason.

-Soc
I drank what?


What?!? (4.50 / 2) (#140)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 08:44:19 PM EST

It's not acceptable to discriminate if the group that practices it has something that outsiders want.

Right. So, it's discrimination when I refuse to allow squatters to sleep in my living room? It's discrimination to shoot a bank robber? Are you insane?

Discrimination occurs - and only occurs - when a group attempts to limit another groups economic or political growth. Not when a group prevents another group from looting things that belong to the first group.


--
Once one sock is sucked, the other sock will remain forever unsucked.


[ Parent ]

How do we define discrimination? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by huddles on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 02:13:48 AM EST

Actually, I would define discrimination as choosing one thing over another. Choosing whites instead of blacks, men instead of women, chicken instead of beef.

For whatever reasons, we all discriminate on a daily basis. Choosing to spend your time with only white people is discrimination as is choosing to wear jeans when you dress in the morning.

Joe

[ Parent ]
Err... (3.00 / 1) (#157)
by VrtlCybr2000 on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:26:00 AM EST

Discrimination occurs - and only occurs - when a group attempts to limit another groups economic or political growth.

Like when my family kicks the family out of my living room because they're squatting in it? so the group of people can't shoot the group of robbers who are trying to rob the bank?? Are you insane??

No, I didn't think so... So, again, what the fuck are you trying to go against in his post??

If I have the power and money, and another group wants it, but I don't want to give it to them, will I not feel as though it is being stolen from me? When Women gained the power to vote, the power of a man's vote was diminished... He's right, it is percieved as being stolen by the group that has it, so, instead of trying to apply it to obviously stupid situations, like robbing a bank, apply it how he meant...

[ Parent ]

yes it is discrimination (none / 0) (#159)
by SocratesGhost on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:52:55 AM EST

Ask a communist if what you are doing isn't harmful discrimination. From his perspective, you are. Besides, you do let some people stay at your place (family, friends, in-laws) so you do make a judgment about who may or not stay there.

And there are people who disagree with your exclusivity. They just haven't been able to successfully press their claim.

I probably shouldn't say, "It's not right to discriminate..." but that "It causes controversy to discriminate..." I'm not against all discrimination, but it is a matter of economics on which types are tolerable and which types are not. As home owners, we don't tolerate living room squatters and we have the resources to keep it that way, economically and legally, no?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Phew! (none / 0) (#160)
by gidds on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 12:42:29 PM EST

It's not acceptable to discriminate if the group that practices it has something that outsiders want.

...and there I was expecting penis-envy to enter the discussion :)

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Why do we do this? (3.00 / 3) (#101)
by moonpolysoft on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:39:42 PM EST

It would seem to me that we're all rather strongly programmed from the outset to make judgments about others and seek out people of similar disposition. The question of why we do this is oft left unaddressed when discussing the issue of discrimination.

Divisions among the people of this world is, arguably, the overriding theme of the history of humanity. Groups form, nations are built, and wars are waged. This is nothing new.

Discrimination and, conversely, political correctness are merely a manifestation of this human tendency towards grouping and division. Analyze the PC movement, is it anything more than a group aligned against those evil "racists," whomever they may be?

My point is that these behaviors are ingrained into our very nature. They are not simply going to disappear by being mindful of "sexual harassment" or not staring at the handicapped. If any of you can go through an entire day without making a single judgment about anybody you see, meet, or hear- please tell the rest of us how you did it. When every person on the planet can refrain from judging others then this and quite a few other problems will cease to exist. Otherwise, this is simply a fact of life that everyone must learn to deal with.

Therefore, the question of w"hat kind of discrimination is worse?" is a moot point. Discriminatory behavior is an impedement to human development at this point in our history. Arguing over what kind is worse, or developing new kinds of discrimination to deal with established forms are simply dealing with the symptoms of the underlying problem.

...ooohhhhh SO CLOSE. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by hogda02 on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:20:02 PM EST

I was in almost complete agreement reading your post until you got to the last paragraph "Therefore, the question of what kind of discrimination is worse?" is a moot point. Discriminatory behavior is an impediment to human development at this point in our history"

That's where we sharply part company. And if you examine your own previous points you may see my point. You said it yourself, because of your nature it is impossible not to discriminate. Let me take this further and explain what i think the reason for that is.

There are 5+ billion people in the world. You have probably met a couple of thousand of them in you lifetime. And everyday you meet maybe 10, or 100 more. There has to be some way for you to be able to grasp the essence of those people and fit them into your existence without spending all day doing it. That i think is the reason we discriminate. Immediately upon meeting a person we try to eliminate as many of the millions of personality and social variables that are involved in trying to understand that person. The way we do that is to apply as many of the characteristics of previous persons we have met to this new person. A lot of this is probably done subconsciously and the rest is probably done consciously from brief conversations and such.

Again, the whole purpose of this is because it would be an extremely time prohibitive if you had to start from scratch in figuring out all the variables associated with each person you meet "are they good or evil, smart or dumb, funny or serious". So we discriminate, we categorize and group people based on their similarities to people we met before, and we decide to or not to associate with them based not on their character but on the characters of others.

This is, i think, the root cause of discrimination. The main point i'm making is that there is a practical reason for it. The question becomes can we control or train ourselves to control the types that are "an impediment to human development at this point in our history"

[ Parent ]

Discrimination is GOOD! (2.40 / 5) (#103)
by opendna on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 10:52:57 PM EST

<rant>
Discrimination is essential to to human progress.

When brick-brains, who hate on the basis of irrelevant social constructs, band together and discriminate others they encourage the oppressed to seek places with freedom and opportunity. If you are denied opportunites and rights where you live on the basis of X, go somewhere nobody gives a shit if you're X.

The most useless of the oppressed will sit about and whine about sexism and racism and all kinds of nonsense while the enterprising will strike out for new worlds, new frontiers, new markets and new opportunities.

This process is the history of the U.S. and it takes a very special kind of blindness to reject this origin of the American People. The same process has been in effect from the Pilgrims (fleeing Old World religious prosecution) to WWII black migrations (fleeing the south for the north and west) to present day international migrations from Asia and Latin America. This is why Berkeley is the home of Liberals (who aren't safe in much of the country). This is why Castro Street is the capitol of Gay Pride (who aren't safe in much of the country). etc. etc. etc.
</rant>



Move? Run away? (none / 0) (#105)
by Crackerbelly on Fri Nov 08, 2002 at 11:41:58 PM EST

Or, perhaps throw the redcoated bastards out at gunpoint. Or, if moving on has always been a solution, what was the Civil War about? Or, if moving on is the solution, should women have just moved on (to where?) and not demanded and received the vote? I could go on. I think our history is full of examples of people who stand and fight for what they believe. I beg to disagree. Mark

[ Parent ]
Revolt against social discrimination? (none / 0) (#119)
by opendna on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:13:06 AM EST

Someone beat me to it.

Yeah, you're right. Columbine has a place in American history too.



[ Parent ]

whatever (none / 0) (#127)
by Crackerbelly on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:08:36 PM EST

I must be missing your point. Is there one?

[ Parent ]
The Point? Shut up and work! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by opendna on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 11:30:28 PM EST

My point was pretty clear: If you don't like the social system where you live you should move. There's nothing shameful about leaving a community because it is too intollerant to tollerate.

Over time the racist/sexist/etc lands slowly but surely become irrelevant backwaters and the lands which *are* tollerant become economic powerhouses. Milton Friedman's take on racist business practices applied to communities works quiet well.

Was that unclear?

You responded that X-ism should be confronted with violence, with references to the American Independence and Civil War. In a more nonviolent (!?!) direction you pointed to the movement to secure women the right to vote.

While these references are all fine and applicable to cases where the *government* engages in active discrimination, they have no parallel to the parent article's complaints. Where is the American Apartheid regime that forces blacks to live in ghettos? Where is the American Allatolah who mandates women will only earn 75% of men? There is none, so who will be targeted with violence?

Will we shoot ignorant rednecks and call it liberation? Will we car bomb bastions of white priviledge? Perhaps we should beat up old white men in suits in retaliation...

What? This is what you were suggesting: That social problems be solved with violence. American Neo-Nazis agree but they want a race war. I think it all stinks of terrorism, the bastard son of crime and politics.

In evitably activists seeking social equality engage in idiocies like protesting university board meetings and demanding preferential treatment for women, or people of color, or etc. 57% of bachelor's degrees awarded in 2002 went to women (the percentage gets as high as 70% in black universities)[*] but you can't discuss that, or the fact that boys are trailing girls in elementary school literacy assessments by 10-20%.

Why protest? Because there is racism and sexism and... Why the university? Because it's convenient. Why the men's club? Because it's convenient. Can these institutions change anything? Well, no, but that's not the point. The point is to take action against injustice, no matter how misdirected the action...

Right?

I mean, it would be too much effort to only associate with people who treat us justly... or to live in a community that will accept us... or...

[*] ref: "Women outnumbering men in earning college degrees", Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, June 28 2002.



[ Parent ]

Shooting Ignorant Rednecks Is GOOD! [N/T] (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by kcidx on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:06:39 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Segregation (5.00 / 5) (#125)
by grahamsz on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 06:56:02 AM EST

I'm always confused by the hypocracy that you can find so easily. Personally I'm just waiting for someone to start White Entertainment Television, except that I know there would be thousands of complaints (not lest 'cos it would acronymise to WET). Yet BET is possibly the most stereotyping channel i've ever seen - not all black people are into hiphop and gangsta-rap.

Here in the UK at least the scouts have sorted things out. Girls certainly can and do join the boy scouts, although i've never known anyone to reciprocate.

There's plenty more examples but I feel we should have total equality or not even try. The fact that there were 10 times more scholarships for women on my course strikes me as out and out discrimination, and yet this behaviour is praised for supporting women in engineering.

People can't complain about racial/sexual inequalities but setting up further opposing discrimination. As they say, two wrongs dont make a right.

--
Sell your digital photos - I've made enough to buy a taco today

Reverse discrimination (4.66 / 3) (#143)
by xriso on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 10:45:31 PM EST

The other ironic aspect is that it just makes the group look inferior, because they need help where others do not.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Talking about this yesterday (4.00 / 1) (#168)
by Kirisu on Tue Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:06 PM EST

I was just talking about this same thing yesterday with my family. If someone were to make a clothing line similar to FUBU, but for white people, it would be called racist. But it is alright for FUBU to exist because it is for black people. The same thing goes for the United Negro College Fund, if I had the money, I would start a United Cracker College Fund or something like that (making sure the name sounded stupid), but alas, I am poor.

[ Parent ]
Bias and Balance (none / 0) (#170)
by virg on Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 10:31:01 AM EST

> If someone were to make a clothing line similar to FUBU, but for white people, it would be called racist. But it is alright for FUBU to exist because it is for black people.

Well, there are a number of black folks who dislike the ad campaigns that FUBU uses, saying that they are indeed racist.

> The same thing goes for the United Negro College Fund, if I had the money, I would start a United Cracker College Fund or something like that...

This is not really on the same level, nor is the analysis fair. The UNCF was created at a time when every other scholarship and college fund was the UCCF, because at the time, black students truly needed the help being able to afford college, and according to the records, no other plans existed that would fund a black student. By this time, it's not nearly as relevant or necessary, but inertia being what it is, it still exists. However, it is still more likely that a black student entering college will need financial assistance than a white student, so even these days it hasn't lost all of its relevance.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Discrimination and the Free Market/Society (4.00 / 6) (#128)
by mr eff on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:16:27 PM EST

I'd propose that in all cases outside the public sphere (That area run by the State) that we allow the free market to regulate for the drawbacks and inequalities that discriminatory practices might create. In doing so, we create a more free society and we allow for markets to be created that benefit more than forcing egalitarianism on businesses.

Recently, William Rasberry also wrote about black youths who profited from the hole in the pizza delivery market left by the pizza companies who refused to deliver to their neighborhood. Because some women don't like working out with men around, women's only gyms have been created. Because some men find that they can't fart and tell dirty jokes with women around, they go and join a club where women aren't allowed. Schools are the easiest example. Because of a demand by parents, single sex schools have existed over the years (although they have come and gone in popularity on the winds of education theory).

Economically, it is better to allow people to make choices in the establishments that they belong to based on discriminating criteria. If we abolished all female gyms, would many of the women stop going to the gym altogether, thereby taking their business out of the marketplace? If people had forced the pizza delivery companies to deliver to all neighborhoods, the kids who filled the gap would have missed out on their economic opportunity. When businesses are regulated to the point where almost every entity in a market is the same, the ability for competitors to differentiate themselves becomes more difficult, therefore competition is less likely to exist (Competition is usually good for consumers...i'm a consumer, I like that sort of thing).

I'm not explaning this idea as well as I'd like to (I just woke up), but basically I think this society is better off allowing people and businesses to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for the benefits and drawbacks that they experience in the marketplace.


What fun is it being cool if you can't wear a sombrero? -- Hobbes

Laissez-faire vs public interest (5.00 / 2) (#165)
by I am Jack's username on Tue Nov 12, 2002 at 04:44:29 AM EST

[B]y equating private interests with the public interest, market fundamentalism endows the pursuit of self-interest with a moral quality.

But if financial markets do not tend toward equilibrium, as the theory of reflexivity maintains, private interests cannot be equated with the public interest. Left to their own devices, financial markets are liable to go to socially disruptive extremes.

The fallacy of endowing the market mechanism with a moral quality goes deeper still. What distinguishes markets is exactly that they are amoral--that is to say, moral considerations do not find expression in market prices. - George Soros, Busted: why the markets can't fix themselves, 2002-09-02


--
Inoshiro for president!
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
When is discrimination bad? (5.00 / 6) (#131)
by mindstrm on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 12:59:18 PM EST

Discrimination is bad when it is based on something not real or factual: Excluding black people from the air force because "black people are stupid".  Not giving women the same wages as men because they are women, but not based on real performance.

The reason we seem to have a bias towards white-only clubs is because they tend to be anti-black; something america has had  a historical problem with; White-only groups are white-only often because they believe that all other 'races' are inferior; it is a group based on hate and fear.
Black-only groups are usually in contrast to this, to support what was a minority faced with this prejudice.

Boys and girls are different. Men and women are different.
Gays and straights are different.
Whites and blacks are different.

There are many ways people can find to see themselves in the same class as others; if they choose to gather on the basis of those similarities, that's fine.

When those artificial boundaries start to affect the quality of life of others, it becomes a public interest, like the woman who wants into the men-only social club because it will affect her career; she has a valid complaint if that club is frequented by many of those in her profession. On the other hand, a little girl not being allowed in the Harlem Boys choir is hardly discriminatory.

Womens college... (4.00 / 2) (#137)
by Kintanon on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 04:40:47 PM EST

So what if I think a womens college provides a superior education with superior facilities and I, as a male, wish to attend. Should they have the right to tell me I can't? We've already had one instance of educational discrimination being struck down (Citadel case), but that was for a Mens college. Do the same standards apply?

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Women's colleges (4.00 / 1) (#148)
by cyberbuffalo on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 06:23:35 PM EST

I live in MA and we have quite a few women's colleges. A lot of them are opening up now to men, but I don't think it is for reason of fairness. The colleges just don't like being known as lesbian training grounds and would like to move away from that stereotype.

[ Parent ]
THat depends. (none / 0) (#163)
by mindstrm on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 08:38:07 PM EST

As Men still have the upper hand in most things, I don't think we are in a position to complain YET.

The problem with Mens colleges are that, at one time, they were THE colleges, THE respected institutions, with better resources and contacts,  not simply "a place for men to learn".

They actively kept women from being treated as equals.

[ Parent ]

A possible resolution (4.40 / 5) (#142)
by xriso on Sat Nov 09, 2002 at 10:39:06 PM EST

Let people make whatever exclusive groups they want, such as Llama Lovers, or White Anglosaxons. However:
  1. If the group does something stupid, like obsess about how non-llama-lovers are inferior to llama-lovers, then the group would be rated as "suck" by me and sensible society.
  2. If they ask for external funding for their little clique, they won't get any.

--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
An idea... (3.60 / 5) (#147)
by JanusAurelius on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 03:30:21 AM EST

I prefer to let raw factual distinction settle this one. Is there any solid difference between men and women? By solid difference I mean biological. This is a no-brainer no? Do the words estrogen and testosterone mean anything to you? Or do you need to look at the guys constantly complaining that girls don't make sense (and girls wishing that guys were more consistent) to realize that there are differences between the two sexes? This is where feminists tend to pique my humor, the way they stoutly refuse to recognize the physical and mental divisions drawn out by our biological differences. Heck, all you have to do watch a few episodes of Nat'l Geographic to realize than indeed most of the animal world just is this way. Just as it's a bad idea to lower standards for women firefighters, women should as well be permitted to form exclusive groups of their own.

On the other hand, issues like race are much more touchy because it hasn't been scientifically proven that any of the races are all too different from each other once "lurking variables" such as poverty, neighborhood where the subject grew up, etc., are factored out. There may be differences such as that Africans have higher rates of lactose deficiency (i think), and Asians tend to be less alcohol tolerant, but aside from that, I can't really think of any other solid differences. So while it may make sense to have sororities and fraternities (so that, as they say, girls can be girls and boys can be boys), it does not make as much sense to have all-white clubs.

This of course brings us to the question of why it is that all-white groups are verboten, but all-black groups are not. My answer to this is rather simple. There have been far more racially motivated white on black crimes in this country than there have been racially motivated black on white crimes, even in recent times. White groups tend to attract white-supremacists, which makes them verboten. The three men who dragged a black man to his death from the back of a pickup were supposedly tied to such groups. The only black on white race crime I can remember is that of Colin Ferguson. He was just a nutcase, with no ties to any black-supremacist groups. So like it or not, but the annoying "we blacks have it so hard in this country" pundits are right as far as the extremism side of the coin goes. To reiterate, it's for fear of extremists that all-white groups are verboten, whereas there have been no comparable all-black extremist groups. Like it or not, it inevitably comes down to these empirical facts.



Well said n/t (none / 0) (#149)
by Lord Snott on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 07:50:20 PM EST


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This sig in violation of U.S. trademark
registration number 2,347,676.
Bummer :-(

[ Parent ]
I'm too picky.... (none / 0) (#155)
by VrtlCybr2000 on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:01:18 AM EST

Um, that's serial number 75502288

And registration number 2347676

:-(



[ Parent ]

Err... (none / 0) (#156)
by VrtlCybr2000 on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:02:43 AM EST

And don't even ask me why I was it differently the first time......   ;-p

[ Parent ]
Race differences. (2.00 / 2) (#153)
by Anonymous Hiro on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 10:45:17 AM EST

Yah, I find it harder and harder to tell the difference between those who believe that everything should be the same for both males and females and those who are stupid. Perhaps I will stop discriminating between the gender blinkered and the stupid.

There are racial differences - see sports. Basketball, sprints etc. Many other differences are probably more cultural or environmental, but there seem to be a strong genetic basis for lots of differences, especially in the biomedical areas.

To those who use the DNA argument to say there is no significant difference between the races- I say this: the small difference between our DNA and the chimps makes us quite significantly different by both human and chimp standards (the standards of totally alien entities may differ - like humans comparing ants of different shades, or "Oh look how fascinating: these lifeforms store genetic info in DNA!").

So it may not be far fetched to say that the little genetic difference between the races could be significant enough for many cases.

Would you bet on the white boxer/sprinter or the black one? Sure there are exceptions, but hey they are exceptions.

Often stereotypes are valid for reasons, cultural or racial it doesn't matter when you have limited information and a potentially important decision has to be made in a short time - e.g. when you are walking in a lonely street at night.

Discriminating correctly is using your brains. Discriminating incorrectly = stupid.

Not hiring a guy just because he's black is as stupid as hiring a guy just because he's black.

Hiring a guy just because he's black and the government says you must is less stupid (coz if you don't, you get punished by the government and you are breaking some law somewhere).

[ Parent ]

Black on White Crime (3.00 / 1) (#162)
by Jackal2783 on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 05:21:13 PM EST

JanusAurelius wrote: >>On the other hand, issues like race are much more touchy because it hasn't been scientifically proven that any of the races are all too different from each other once "lurking variables" such as poverty, neighborhood where the subject grew up, etc., are factored out. There may be differences such as that Africans have higher rates of lactose deficiency (i think), and Asians tend to be less alcohol tolerant, but aside from that, I can't really think of any other solid differences. Myself: Actually, there are plenty of genetic differences. Firstly, it has been shown that, finding a bone marrow transplant follows racial lines. Reason? Very simple. The REASON that people of the same race have more similarities is because they are more genetically similar. Body structure, such as the face, hair, stature, etc. Exceptions exist of course, but they are what they are, exceptions, especially when concerning mixed raced people, because they have both lineage. Think about it. Just because you are geneteically close enough to interbreed does not make you exactly like. Everyone has pros and cons, and they get that from their family. Well, race is nothing more than an extended family of people who interbred away from everyone else over time. Nothing cynical about it; just the reality. JanusAurelius wrote: So while it may make sense to have sororities and fraternities (so that, as they say, girls can be girls and boys can be boys), it does not make as much sense to have all-white clubs. Myself: Why would that make it illogical to have "all-white clubs"? Just as boys/girls are genetically different, so are black/white/hispanic/asian, etc. There are common cultural/racial bonds between people of the same race..not to say that there is animosity towards other races, but people in general feel more comfortable with what they know, thus, they feel more comfortable around people of their own lineage. JanusAurelius wrote: This of course brings us to the question of why it is that all-white groups are verboten, but all-black groups are not. My answer to this is rather simple. There have been far more racially motivated white on black crimes in this country than there have been racially motivated black on white crimes, even in recent times. Myself: Actually, you are not just somewhat wrong, you are COMPLETELY wrong. See the FBI's statistics. The NAAWP has also highlighted some of the main points at its website http://www.naawp.com/crime_stats.htm Let me post a few startling facts. 1. Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate whites murder blacks. 2. Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites, although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1. 3. About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white. These are just a few of the statistics, which can be backed up. Just because you don't HEAR about the crimes, doesn't mean they don't happen. Think about it. It's not PC (politically correct) to cry racism when a black kills a white person. Therefore, the crimes go unnoticed. Nobody heard about the copycat crime of the one in Jasper against whites, or the murders in Witchita which were CLEARLY racial in nature, yet you defintely heard about the original Jasper murder, right? Thought so. JanusAurelius wrote: White groups tend to attract white-supremacists, which makes them verboten. Myself: They tend to get ASSOCIATED with white supremacists doesn't mean the people are. The NAAWP is for equal rights for all, special privilages for none, yet they are associated with other "hate groups." Why? Because it's not politically correct. JanusAurelius wrote: The three men who dragged a black man to his death from the back of a pickup were supposedly tied to such groups. The only black on white race crime I can remember is that of Colin Ferguson. He was just a nutcase, with no ties to any black-supremacist groups. So like it or not, but the annoying "we blacks have it so hard in this country" pundits are right as far as the extremism side of the coin goes. To reiterate, it's for fear of extremists that all-white groups are verboten, whereas there have been no comparable all-black extremist groups. Like it or not, it inevitably comes down to these empirical facts. Myself: Two words: Black Panthers. They've murdered, scared, attacked, thralled, numerous white people. Just check out their website. It's FULL of loons. One of their main points is to get all black people let free from jail. So what, a black person has never committed a crime? Please. I think this proves my point. Thanks for listening. --John Hinson

[ Parent ]
motivation for the exclusion (4.00 / 1) (#158)
by PedroRodriguez on Mon Nov 11, 2002 at 11:26:19 AM EST

On the one hand it seems to be the motivation for the exclusion that has to be the deciding factor. If the motivation for excluding people is a sound one you might not want to call it discrimination. for example I find it close to impossible to think of a valid motivation for having a white-only club. I mean I cant think of a club that would behave differently if it would just consist of white people or if it would consist of black people. Only rascist people would have trouble behaving in a similar fashion if it would be black and white together instead of just white.

On the other hand one can not say that people dont behave differently in a male-only club (or women-only club for that matter) than in club that has both female and male members. So in my opinion a valid reason for having male-only or female-only club is because the club would indeed function differently if it wasn't exclusive. Granted a rascist-group would behave differently when a coloured person would join but only because their rascist motivation. While I feel that wanting to have that certain "male-bonding" feeling going in a group is a much more valid motivation. Like having very different friendships with females or males is in my eyes a socially accepted thing.

The problem starts when a club has certain social advantages that go farther than the boundaries of the club. Some men-only clubs act as socially priviledging groups, ie being a member helps the member in ways that are reaching beyond the boundaries of the group. Either these groups should drop their outside-of-club-advantages or they should drop their excluding member policies.

Equal Opportunity To Exclude? | 179 comments (160 topical, 19 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!