Unitended racism

You almost made me cry out of sheer joy. Most people just want to deny outright that this is a form of racism or this even exists at all. I have to admit that I was one of most people before my asian friends talked to me in detail about this problem.The asexualization of asian actors has had at least one very dire consequence. As a direct result of this racist movement by the cinema, our collective consciousness has be altered to view asian men as undesirable. At this point, some numb nut usually comes in and points out that asian actresses are doing pretty well in hollywood. This numb nut, of course, is a racist bastard that is grasping a straws to deny his racism. Why? Because I'm talking about asian men, you dumbass!My asian friends also pointed out to me something that I noticed while in college but never really paid attention to until now. You don't actually see that many asian guys with girl friends (white or asian). You do, however, see a lot of asian females with white boy friends. It was one of those light bulb lighting up above the head kinda moment for me when this was pointed out to me. All of this has been explained to me. I have a friend who's a gay asian state trooper. He told me that he gets a lot of crap for being such. When I first heard about it, a lawsuit came to mind right away. I thought it had millions written all over it. But after he explained to me about the crap that he gets, I'd have to agree with him that there's nothing he could do in court. People aren't stupid enough to make their prejudice obvious enough to be brought to court. Besides, it's a homophobic institution.Good news is he's looking into other career choices.

There is probably something wrong, but the numbers don't prove that on their own. Maybe the 30% of minority employees have only a High School education, should they then be promoted to get the management numbers above 5%? I know you're not advocating that, but if minorities have a harder time making it to college, as they do, then it is not hard to believe that more qualified white applicants applied for the management job than qualified minority applicants. What we would need to look at is not the population as a whole, but the population of "qualified applicants" however you determine that. If, of the qualified applicants for managerial jobs over the life of the company, only 5% were minorities, then the numbers would be perfect. This is a much better argument, however, what population are you looking at? Do you mean the population of the country, the population of the area the company operates in, or the population of qualified applicants? I know racism exists, and that it needs to be countered, but I think better educational opportunities, an anonymous application process, and a mode of redress in pay rate discrepancies that is far superior to our current "don't talk about pay" mentality is a better solution and liable to lead to more inclusive mentalities than Affirmative Action, which for all of it's actual good, still is perceived (and we can see this even in this thread) as reverse-discrimination.

AA laws vary. It's difficult to comment on specifically what population should be looked at. In many cases it simply takes the form of a quota that needs to be maintained, and that quota is determined by local laws. Some may look at the local population, some may be completely arbitrary, some may look at current employment rates and simply try to increase them. Clearly, however, if no qualified minorities apply for a given position, an unqualified person will not get the job.The intent is a conscious recognition that "there is a bias here, even if I don't specifically feel that bias. To counteract it, I will make a conscious effort to hire minorities so that even unintentional racism is prevented in my workplace."I agree with the problems of perception with AA. Hell, I dislike it as much as its detractors - it's nowhere near an ideal solution. It's simply the most effective solution to date. The hope, of course, is that within a few more generations we can either eliminate the overarching statistical discrimination against minorities, equalizing opportunity and pay along lines of merit rather than race or gender, or come up with a more equitable solution to combat it.But pretending that doing nothing is a viable option is unacceptable. The status quo is not a meritocracy; the most deserving, the hardest working, are not always the people who get ahead.As an aside, I hate the term "reverse discrimination." There's no such thing - discrimination is discrimination, regardless of who is being discriminated against. Racism exists against blacks, hispanics, asians, and everyone else including whites. The issue relevant to AA is that, in America, there is pervasive and statistically significant bias against non-white ethnic groups and women in the workplace.

I agree with everything you said. I'm trying to figure out a way to let us, as a country, move away from the necessity of AA. I understand that something needs to be done, and in lieu of a better solution, AA is what we have. It's just frustrating to me that our country, as far as I can tell, seems to think that AA has "solved the problem" and there doesn't seem to be any real move to come to a better and more accepted solution. I agree that the term is essentially meaningless, but in this context, discrimination to combat discrimination, it seems to be an appropriate use.

CosmicChimp responds to me:

quote:

---

I am actually interested in having some of the reasoning spelled out for me.

---

There's that whole "all men are created equal" concept which if we're going to live up to our convictions of justice for all, would require that we actively look out for discrimination within our ranks and do something about it. It is not enough to simply expect those who are disadvantaged to come to you. You have to seek them out and encourage them.

quote:

---

No, I did not read it and probably won't have any time for that. But thanks for your clarification nonetheless.

---

So let me see if I understand:You didn't read the decision.
You aren't going to read the decision.
You don't know what the law says.
You aren't going to find out what the law says.
And yet, you feel justified in making claims about what the decision said about the law (re: Message 15)......and are upset that somebody called you on it.Has it occurred to you that perhaps you should do your homework before you enter into the discussion rather than forcing other people to do it for you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rahvin writes:

quote:

---

And what about the proven statistical trend that women make less money than men and earn fewer promotions despite equivalent education and experience?

---

Actually, that isn't true. With regard to affirmative action, women have been the primary beneficiary.When education, experience, job history, etc. are taken into account, women earn about 95% of what men earn, 98-100% when starting salary is taken into account.The reason why women as a group, not taking such things into account but simply aggregating the whole, earn about 75% of what men earn has to do with the way women work. As a group, women tend to work fewer hours (more women work only 35 hours a week while more men work 50...both are considered "full time," but those who work more hours will tend to earn more). Women are more likely to have breaks in their job history, which depress their overall earnings.Even when we look at similar job categories, we find women tend to go into professions that pay less: When men and women go into medicine, women are more likely to go into specialties that don't pay as much such as pediatrics or psychology compared to specialities that pay more such as cardiology and neurology.Note, I am hardly saying that there isn't discrimination in the workplace. I'm saying that the blatant sexism has mostly gone away and been replaced by more subtle patterns.For example, about half of the Bachelor's degrees in Mathematics go to women, but that rate plummets as you go higher up the degree scale. If I recall correctly, it's something like less than 10% of the Ph.D.'s in Math go to women.Something is happening. It most likely isn't blatant discrimination at the graduate school level, though I am certain that there are many professors in academia who make their female students' lives unpleasant (to say the least) such that they don't wish to continue. However, a lot of it is the specific choices women, as a group, make with regard to their career.So long as society (and women are part of that society) thinks that women are the ones who stay home and take care of the children, there will always be a discrepancy between what women earn and what men earn.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Critics would suggest that affirmative action causes a boss to consciously overlook a candidate because of their skin color or ethnicity. I have no problem with other people getting a chance as long as I don't have to step aside in order for them to get it.This is why I like the union. Seniority sees no ethnic bias. Seniority is the fairest possible system, as it prevents favoritism in any way shape or form.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

Critics would suggest that affirmative action causes a boss to consciously overlook a candidate because of their skin color or ethnicity.

---

And they would be vastly mischaracterizing how affirmative action works. This is a Republican talking point and like most such points, is completely divorced from reality.

quote:

---

I have no problem with other people getting a chance as long as I don't have to step aside in order for them to get it.

---

And what makes you think you have? Did someone tell you that you did?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So how else are you supposed to determine how somebody gets hired?A forensic pathologist was hired, not because she went to school specifically for pathology for 10 years during medical school but because it was a first-come, first-serve thing?What other basis do you have in giving someone a job other than experiences and qualifications? I have a minority-sounding last name. I've never had any problems. The only time I've ever had a problem is when applying for a job I wasn't qualified for. The President of the United States is mulatto, but identifies most with being black... The only reason he could have won that election was because white voters voted him in and still knowing that fact about him and not caring. Hasn't this remarkable and unprecedented change demonstrate that collectively the average US citizen doesn't want to live under old pretenses? I've never seen or heard of any study on this so I guess I can't comment on it. I'm sure you have and perhaps you can post it for us all to review. In the meantime what is your solution, because you also say that you are against affirmative action for unspecified reasons?Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typos

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

You aren't guaranteed anything in life. So what's your solution? Not work hard because Uncle Sam will come and wipe your ass and dry your tears for free? Not necessarily, but perhaps. I don't think a private company should be forced to pretend they aren't racist through a government mandate. As if that actually fixes anything, least of all racial animosity. If anything it inflames it. People keep citing these statistics. Do you have them on hand? I can't seem to find any, but I want to see their methodology. That's not a solution to anything. It's offensive on so many levels. "Here, you get a job because you are black and because you're a woman, not because you've earned it.... Ahhhh, now I feel so sanctimonious because I helped a black person!" I would be more offended and think less of myself if I only got a job out of pity. That actually would make it worse than being discriminated against the first time. At least the openly racist is honest enough to tell you to fuck off to your face, as opposed to the closet racist who praises your blackness to your face but hopes you get hit by a car on the way to work tomorrow. Yes, I am aware that racism is still alive and well, as if this is a new, shocking phenomenon. But you are making it sound far more prevalent it actually is. Actually, wait a minute. Where do you live? That might have something to do with it. Geography plays a big part in it. Maybe I've just always lived in places where it exists, but is not at all widespread. Having the government force mandates on private companies to pretend they're no longer racist doesn't help. First of all, that doesn't take away racism, it just creates more animosity and feeds the notion to the racists that minorities couldn't otherwise get a job on their own merits unless it was spoon fed to them. How utterly offensive.You want to fix the disparity, well it's been fixing itself year by year. This country is the least racist it has ever been with a noticeable trend showing that it's not slowing down. The President of the United States is black. That says everything about where this country is going.I love the idea of equal opportunity employing, where the business itself sets its own standard, not the fucking government. Besides, why would anyone want to willingly work for a company that you know is racist and only gave them a job because they're black in the first place? No, it certainly isn't. It's about equality, as in "to be equal."

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I agree. However, I see AA as being worse than that. I see it as exacerbating overall race relations.There is this sense of white guilt, particularly amongst left-leaning individuals, that the only way to atone for the sins of the past is to self-denigrate.It doesn't combat racism though, it just further points to differences instead of pointing to similarities. The only effective way the United States has healed from its heinous crimes is through love, as sappy and sentimental as it might sound. Groups like the Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam did more to make a mockery of the ideals and philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr than it did to help. They did just as much damage to the de-segregation movement as the Ku Klux Klan did!What has worked is the slow assimilation of cultures until they become indistinguishably one and the same. It is people who have won the hearts of people, not policy. King won the hearts and minds of the people, and made the bigots say to themselves "this is wrong."The way I see it, the more that people segregate themselves as black or white or Asian or Hispanic, even in the professed interest of "equality," it still is divisive and not conducive to healing.If we're going to be equal, then be equal. You can't force people out of bigotry no matter how many policies you create. You have to win their hearts and minds to achieve a true and lasting peace.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

'Affirmative Action' or 'Positive Discrimination' as it's called here in the UK is just that: discrimination based on race, colour or sex. One can dress it up in colourful words but that doesn't make it less of a discriminatory practice. Its advocates are usually white, middle-class people of the 'two wrongs can make a right' persuasion, making guilt sacrifices to the altar of political correctness and sanctimonious self-righteousness.Hyroglyphx hit the nail on the head when he said that combating racism with more racism simply negates the premise. It just creates more friction and resentment and feeds racist mindsets among white people who feel aggrieved by the perceived injustice. It degrades and alienates minorities, making them feel like helpless, useless children needing the intervention of the state to get on in life. Spot on. That would yield much better long-term improvements than the short-term AA soundbytes currently served up by politicians. You do realise that 'correcting statistical disadvantages' has been used as an excuse for a number of genocidal crimes throughout the centuries, don't you?The most recent one was the Rwandan genocide, which fermented under the "Bahutu" Manifesto, published by the Hutu Emancipation Movement in which it was alleged that a monopoly of power was being held by the Tutsi minority.
The Hutu corrected this particular 'statistical disadvantage' by killing between 700,000 - 1,000,000 Tutsis and politically-opposed Hutus. Suddenly less Tutsis held positions of power (as they were dead). Statistical balance had been restored!Even more famously, Hitler corrected the 'statistical disadvantage' of the most populous and most productive European nation -at the time- been allocated only a small percentage of the available land and resources. The means of his 'correction' are well-known and documented.'Statistical disadvantage corrections' are the first steps down a very slippery slope. Let's keep them to the annals of history where they belong.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Wow, of all the misreading in the world, I think you've topped it all.Ideally speaking, hiring based solely on qualifications is the way to do it. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where people have prejudices.In our world, hiring based solely on qualifications is bullshit because that's not going to happen with most people out there. Seriously, are you being sarcastic? I was talking in general terms, you (insert name calling here). Bringing in an exception won't change anything. Ideally speaking, yes. But again, if we step back and look at the big picture, minorities continue to have a problem with statistics (according to ratio that is).Someone else brought this up. Recently, orchestras are beginning to have more of a diverse player composition after they implimented auditions where the judges couldn't see who's playing. Before that, everyone denied being racists and everyone claimed to want social progress, but for some reason the orchestras were made almost entirely of white men. But after the new policy, suddenly they began to have women, blacks, and other minorities in their orchestras. Call it a coincidence if you want. I thought this was common knowledge. They only talked about it for the last few years on the news. But here is a link to an article for a starter.http://findarticles.com/...cles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146In regard to what could replace affirmative action, I don't have an answer for now.

Oh, this was the best part... That post was wicked. Shit, with that kind of natural wit you should be a writer.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Yes, which is what I stated in my second post. It sounded as if you were disagreeing with me. And so your solution is compulsory hiring of minorities? I don't get it. No, I'm being serious. I'm hispanic. I'm obviously not going to divulge what my last name is, but you get the idea. Though in all fairness, I don't look very hispanic. I get mercilessly teased for it by both whites and hispanics... It's all in jest I think that's a great idea. All that matters is how you play, right? Whether we like or not people are always judging us on how we dress, how we speak, our mannerisms, etc. That's human nature and you can't get around that.If people are not hiring minorities strictly on that basis alone, you and I both know that it's bullshit. That's wrong. There is no nice way of putting it. I'm contending with the proposed solution which in my best judgment adds to the existing problem. What the hell is a "black-sounding name," anyway? Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Arabic... That makes sense, but most black and white people share predominantly English, Irish, and Scottish names, no?For instance my boss is black and his name is John McDonald. How about Equal Opportunity employment where the company decides of its own free will that they stand for integrity. It may not always work, but again, would you really want to work for a company that despises you anyhow? That would suck...

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson