SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has posted a blog entry on gender discrimination. His goal is to gather as many links as possible on all sides of the issue; he intends to try to summarize what's out there in a subsequent post. His blog entry includes a few interesting, possibly insightful comments, for example:
"Some men are bullies and assholes. And most men are assholes at least some of the time. When men are bullies and assholes to each other, we interpret it as exactly that. But if I observe those same bullies and assholes mistreating a woman, I interpret it as sexism. I assume others see it the same way.
"The other day a good friend who works as a massage therapist was describing a time in her past she was a victim of gender discrimination. The story sounded convincing to me. Then I asked if she knew I would not have considered her as my massage therapist if she were a man. Cricket noises."
"My larger point today is that any discussion of gender in the workplace is like two blind people standing on an elephant and arguing whether the elephant is a sandwich or a bar of soap. Both are 100% wrong. That includes me."
Personally, I find Adams' writing to be frequently interesting — he at least tries to find his way around traditional blindspots. Sometimes he even succeeds. Since gender discrimination is so often a topic in technical fields, perhaps Soylentils will find this of interest...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @03:10AM
> if you're a white male agnostic (as I am) in this country, you are boned.
Well, you had a good long run.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Monday March 16 2015, @04:35AM
Discrimination is discrimination. My grandparent treating your grandparent poorly has nothing to do with either of us. If you see anything in that description that you feel gives you a right to judge, you are as guilty as the people you are attacking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:16AM
Lol. I'm judging you for not getting the joke.
Of course the joke was at the expense of the agnostic white guy, so you know, I was totally discriminating against him.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by sigma on Monday March 16 2015, @06:36AM
Discrimination is discrimination.
No, not quite. The Petrie Multiplier [blogspot.com] means a majority attacking a minority results in discrimination squared.
If you read the link, you'll understand why it's sometimes necessary to apply positive action (viewed as discriminatory) to counteract the effects of past discrimination.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Monday March 16 2015, @06:56AM
I'm not disagreeing on that point at all. I specifically said between our grandparents. Punishing a person for their own actions is very different from punishing them for someone else's actions past or present. Only one of them has any place in a fair society.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 16 2015, @07:49AM
What a wonderfully imaginative way to justify YOUR OWN version of discrimination. MY VERSION of discrimination is evil, but YOUR VERSION of discrimination is good.
How about we just expose all bigots as exactly what they are? Sexist, racist, ethnocentric bigoted SOB's. And, yes, I believe that includes you.
I'm going to buy my defensive radar from Temu, just like Venezuela!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:49PM
How about we just expose all bigots as exactly what they are? Sexist, racist, ethnocentric bigoted SOB's. And, yes, I believe that includes you.
Actually, it includes you too. We all discriminate based on prejudice. Denying your own fallibility and putting it all on others would be ignorant.
Unless your goal is simply to feel righteous about yourself, the question that really matters is what are the results?
And that is what Ian Gent is getting at in that blog post. His ideas are not unique, nor new. For example, in 1971 Thomas Schelling [wikipedia.org] showed that even a small percentage of racists in a majority ethnic group can easily lead to fully segregated neighborhoods. Here's is an implementation of the classic Life automata modififed to show that effect in action, [mit.edu] and a more interactive demonstration here. [ncase.me]
By the way the definition of bigot is not just being racist, sexist, etc. It is someone, who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. [merriam-webster.com] So now you have a choice.
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday March 16 2015, @02:35PM
Unless your goal is simply to feel righteous about yourself, the question that really matters is what are the results?
No - that's not the question that matters at all. Because if you're trying to control outcomes based on statistical variations based on race/gender/origin/whatever, you can always find something that looks "unfair" for one particular group or another, and an authoritarian way of making some "adjustment". And, of course, since you're only looking at groups, you're going to be harming some people and rewarding others based solely on an accident of birth.
And this leads to all kinds of moral hazards, not to mention the total effect of eliminating any motivation for individuals to make an effort to improve themselves and society. I refer you here to Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org] as an excellent illustration of the logical eventuality of your kind of thinking.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @02:52PM
Because if you're trying to control outcomes based on statistical variations based on race/gender/origin/whatever, you can always find something that looks "unfair"
That's classic making the perfect the enemy of the good rationalization.
Just because it is possible to use bad judgment doesn't mean we will use bad judgment.
Furthermore, leaving it up to non-random chance based on the status quo is just the tyranny of the masses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @03:04PM
> I refer you here to Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron
Seems like Vonnegut's view of the lessons of Bergeron differs from yours. [ljworld.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @02:55PM
Actually he proved it, with the sentence:
What's that, if not prejudice?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday March 16 2015, @11:31AM
Besides, its a good way to keep the grudges going and use divide and conqueror as a political tool.
The nightmare of all political activists of all kinds isn't losing, but winning, because that's a trip to the unemployment line and a loss of political power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:18PM
Globally, white males make up a tiny fraction of the population. They out produce and have out produced all other peoples combined in situations good and bad, on every continent of the globe. Yet it is white males that are considered the majority that discriminates against others, it is they that are expected to give more to others while not taking anything in return. How absurd is that? A tiny minority that has been doing well for a very long time being told that they are the powerful majority and are responsible for the woes of every other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:12AM
They out produce and have out produced all other peoples combined
Semen production that does not result in population increase is nothing to be proud of. Wankers!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday March 16 2015, @02:06PM
Actually, it totally does. I'll give you an example of this, comparing my life to the life of a co-worker of mine.
I'm a white guy from a fairly well-off background. Generations ago, one of my ancestors had come to an unknown little cow town in Illinois named Chicago and bought up a bunch of real estate - if he had been black, he would never have been allowed to do this. That left my family was loaded with cash. That cash, while definitely a much smaller pile since it was divided hundreds of ways among lots of descendants, formed a significant portion of my undergraduate college fund, which is why I graduated college with no student loans. That meant that after college, I started with several thousand dollars in graduation gifts and what I'd been able to save working over the summers, and my income was about $300 a month higher than my less well-off classmates'. That $300 a month eventually became the down payment on a car, saving me thousands of dollars in interest cost. Now I live a very comfortable life, especially for somebody my age.
A black friend of mine grew up in the inner cities of Cleveland. His family was living in that neighborhood not because they wanted to, but because of a combination of redlining, housing discrimination, and threat of terrorist violence against black people living in most suburbs and rural areas. Living in those neighborhoods, he had a very difficult time avoiding gang involvement and drug use, but managed to make it through school and graduate from college, the first person in his family to do so. However, he always had to take whatever decent job he could get in order to pay off his student loans, and because of that he's not had as much job or housing flexibility as I have. He's doing OK, and much better than his parents ever did, but his income is roughly half of mine and his expenses are much higher. And he also has the additional challenge that all his family lives in the 'hood, so when he goes to visit them he's putting his life at risk, and a fair amount of his income goes to try to help out his family.
So yes, that history makes a big difference. And yes, a white friend of mine who was born dirt-poor in Kentucky had some of the same challenges due to being dirt-poor, but nothing like what my black friend went through and is still going through. Among other things, my dirt-poor friend eventually wasn't dirt-poor and began being treated accordingly, whereas my black friend is still black no matter what he does.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 16 2015, @04:03PM
One more follow-up to this: Ever wonder why there's a whole lot of dirt-poor white people are concentrated in Appalachia? Those are, for the most part, descendants of Scotch-Irish indentured servants brought into the Virginia colony to work in conditions that were only slightly better than those of the black slaves. The minority of that population that survived their indenture period then went west to get land (they had to steal it from the American Indians, of course), because all the good land nearer the coast was already taken.
And because they were on lousy land, their land was nowhere near as productive as those who were on good land, which kept them dirt-poor until the late 1800's. They bore the brunt of much of the Civil War, too. And then they struggled along until coal was discovered in the area, at which point various forms of force were used to prevent them from getting paid a decent wage. Many of them still are either farmers or coal miners, and are still dirt-poor.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1) by albert on Monday March 16 2015, @04:34PM
The people with the culture/DNA/values/whatever to succeed went west to get land. Those remaining are descended from people without the culture/DNA/values/whatever to succeed. It's no surprise they don't do well. Sit on your ass, without imagination and without taking risks, and this is the result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @09:32PM
If you want to say "It's a just world, you get what you deserve," then why don't you just say that?
Even if it's a fallacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @07:47PM
For that to hold true, every white person would have to have demonstrable privilege while black persons would have to have a demonstrable disadvantage. In your case this is correct, you should feel guilty and help out your fellow human being. What of white people that come from an impoverished family that has always been so? Is it fair to expect them to be called privileged in relation to a black family of otherwise identical means? To answer anything but no would not be sane.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 17 2015, @04:42PM
That's a definite "yes". Some reasons why:
- An impoverished white person will escape punishment for many crimes that will land a black person a criminal conviction and jail time. That criminal conviction will effectively bar that black person from most kinds of jobs, most public assistance programs, and most places to live.
- An impoverished white person with a high school diploma has roughly the same career prospects as a black person with a college degree.
- An impoverished white person who eventually gains some wealth and career success is able to "pass" as someone with my kind of privileges and thus gain access to many of the advantages I have.
- An impoverished white person can rent or buy a place to live in more and nicer neighborhoods than a black person of equivalent wealth (and yes, a trailer park is better than the 'hood in a lot of respects). If a white person chooses to buy a home, they will pay a lower interest rate and thus get a better price than a black person with equivalent income and assets.
- Just a name more popular among white people like "Michael" or "Anne" gives a person a significant advantage over a name more popular among black people like "Tyrone" or "Latisha". The white-sounding named person is likely to get more interviews for jobs, for example, even with otherwise identical resumes.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:05AM
I would like to add to Thexalon's reply that none of this is ever a 100% either/or situation. It is statistical in nature. You can always find exceptions. But statistically, the scenarios Thexalon proposes are overwhelmingly the case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:10PM
well no, it's been that way all _my_ life
(Score: 2, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Monday March 16 2015, @02:21PM
> if you're a white male agnostic (as I am) in this country, you are boned. Well, you had a good long run.
Thank you for pointing out the fallacies to today's group politics mentality. Your assertion only works if the "you" is a reference to a group the OP is identified with. It apparently wouldn't matter if the individual had been a victim of oppression and discrimination his whole life - since the group you put him in "had a good long run", it's okay that he struggles with unfairness.
I'll leave this quote from Thomas Sowell here because I think it's a pretty insightful statement: ""Racism does not have a good track record. It has been tried for a long time. You would think by now we would want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management."
I am a crackpot