4 ms·

In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism i

In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism is the combination of discrimination and power. Everyone can do negative discrimination versus anyone based on race, but it becomes racism when the party that does the discrimination has power over the party being discriminated again. If you apply this schema to patriarchy, one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.

LesZedCB 11y ago
Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.
new_corp_dev 11y ago
I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power". The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.
RIMR 11y ago
If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"? Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)? Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Well, we can be sure folks will bring it up again. Nobody is ignoring this issue, especially on internet comment sites. But for now, the status quo is unacceptable and special treatment is called for. Doing nothing is tantamount to acceptance of the unfair situation. Here's an idea: lets reverse things for now. You lose your job, along with most other men, and women are put in their place. That's millions of people changing jobs. How long before men start complaining? How long before 'special treatment' begins to look good to them?
  - RIMR 11y ago
    Anyone who argues that Black History Month should be abolished is labeled as a sexist, even if they're black. You think this issue won't suffer the same problem? The idea of using sexual discrimination to fight sexual discrimination is absurd. Women being treated differently than men is the root of the problem, not the solution.
  - new_corp_dev 11y ago
    Let's make it more fair: instead of men and women changing jobs, ostensibly causing a great deal of chaos, let's go with a parallel universe where your conditions are already in place. Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care. What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently. But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      The standard reply is, those industries are among the lowest-paid. And men are among the highest-offenders. So its a straw man. How about, we use instead any of the other 100 industries where men already hold the best-paid positions? We'll just swap 30 or 40 of them, so as not to cause as much pain to all those poor men.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism. That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.
- neogodless 11y ago
  No - the actor in this scenario, the one with power - is not the male or female engineer, but rather the employer or conference coordinator. They may very well be male, but they are giving the female engineer, who as a class have less power then the class of male engineers a leg up in getting an opportunity to speak. The male engineers experiencing what you call reverse discrimination are still in a position of power as a class.
  - new_corp_dev 11y ago
    Giving someone an opportunity based on a protected class, which denies that same opportunity to someone else of that protected class, is discrimination. It is treating someone negatively based on their protected class. It's the textbook definition of discrimination. Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    The whole 'in power' is just a means to justify racism/sexism/etc. Anyone who defends it is defending racism/sexism/etc.

LesZedCB 11y ago

Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.

new_corp_dev 11y ago

I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power". The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.

RIMR 11y ago

If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"? Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)? Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Well, we can be sure folks will bring it up again. Nobody is ignoring this issue, especially on internet comment sites. But for now, the status quo is unacceptable and special treatment is called for. Doing nothing is tantamount to acceptance of the unfair situation. Here's an idea: lets reverse things for now. You lose your job, along with most other men, and women are put in their place. That's millions of people changing jobs. How long before men start complaining? How long before 'special treatment' begins to look good to them?
- RIMR 11y ago
  Anyone who argues that Black History Month should be abolished is labeled as a sexist, even if they're black. You think this issue won't suffer the same problem? The idea of using sexual discrimination to fight sexual discrimination is absurd. Women being treated differently than men is the root of the problem, not the solution.
- new_corp_dev 11y ago
  Let's make it more fair: instead of men and women changing jobs, ostensibly causing a great deal of chaos, let's go with a parallel universe where your conditions are already in place. Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care. What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently. But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    The standard reply is, those industries are among the lowest-paid. And men are among the highest-offenders. So its a straw man. How about, we use instead any of the other 100 industries where men already hold the best-paid positions? We'll just swap 30 or 40 of them, so as not to cause as much pain to all those poor men.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism. That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.

neogodless 11y ago
No - the actor in this scenario, the one with power - is not the male or female engineer, but rather the employer or conference coordinator. They may very well be male, but they are giving the female engineer, who as a class have less power then the class of male engineers a leg up in getting an opportunity to speak. The male engineers experiencing what you call reverse discrimination are still in a position of power as a class.
- new_corp_dev 11y ago
  Giving someone an opportunity based on a protected class, which denies that same opportunity to someone else of that protected class, is discrimination. It is treating someone negatively based on their protected class. It's the textbook definition of discrimination. Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  The whole 'in power' is just a means to justify racism/sexism/etc. Anyone who defends it is defending racism/sexism/etc.