8 ms·

Yeah, agreed. I still remember seeing a bunch of college students pushing for 'segregation' at university because it would 'help minorities' and thinking "Wasn'

by CM30 9y ago

Yeah, agreed. I still remember seeing a bunch of college students pushing for 'segregation' at university because it would 'help minorities' and thinking "Wasn't that exactly what we got rid of because it was horribly racist 50 years or so ago?" It feels like all these 'minority only' events and clubs and what not are going straight back to the bad old days. Just from the opposite 'side' of the political spectrum.

mrexroad 9y ago
Opinions about <group>-only events aside, there's a difference between a homogeneous group of people choosing to be together, and a group of individuals who were barred from using specific toilets, water fountains, seats, education opportunities, jobs, etc. Comparing segregation to voluntary <group>-only events is a gross misunderstanding of how things were.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  Well it is my understanding that it was a whites-only back in the day. Now it is a not-whites only which really doesn't seem as different to me as you comment indicates it really is. It is just a different group of people telling others what they can and can't do.
  - swampangel 9y ago
    If you were white in 60's America, you didn't have to check ahead of time if a given restaurant would serve you food. If you're white now, you still don't have to check. If you're not white, things are different. Can you think of some examples of when you were unexpectedly forbidden from participating in an event/group/etc? Did you have access to alternatives?
    - ams6110 9y ago
      The 1960s were 50 years ago. You won't experience that today (with very rare exceptions), and that's a good thing. But we can't be forever fixated on things that we've moved past.
      - swampangel 9y ago
        1. The purpose was to illustrate the difference between white-only discrimination (the origin of our current discrimination laws) and modern exclusive group events. 2. There are lots of people who lived through the Civil Rights movement alive today, and segregation and the associated attitudes didn't disappear overnight. Do you think 70 year old politicians carry no baggage from their upbringing and early adulthood?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I think you're missing qualifiers there because men-only social clubs, for example, have been frowned upon for quite some time now.
  - vec 9y ago
    True, but that's not a gender issue per se. Women-only programming groups are based on the theory that women are not being well served by co-ed programming groups, as a combination of socially enforced gender roles plus an understandable discomfort at being the only woman in a room. All male groups are generally frowned upon because there's no reason to think the average male would be prevented from participating in a technically co-ed but heavily male group. I suspect men-only clubs for traditionally female dominated fields, something like an all male kindergarten teacher group, would be broadly accepted as reasonable.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      > I suspect men-only clubs for traditionally female dominated fields, something like an all male kindergarten teacher group, would be broadly accepted as reasonable. Nursing, home healthcare, child care, veterinary services, social services, and libraries are the other canonical examples besides education of highly women-dominated fields where having male-only employee resource groups might make logical sense. I'm not sure I agree with you that it would be broadly accepted as reasonable, however, even though I personally would find it reasonable.
  - swampangel 9y ago
    Since you can't really eliminate backroom dealing, male only social clubs can have the practical effect of excluding women from equal participation/opportunity, at least as long as groups like "C level exec" are disproportionately male.
Latty 9y ago
Then you don't understand the core problem. You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" shtick - people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they are following stupid beliefs. That said, I recognise there are things that have to beat that. Just like free speech doesn't include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, we have to curtail people's right to discriminate where other people's lives are made unlivable because of it. If someone refuses me, the white straight male, the chance to buy something, I go somewhere else. That's not the case for some minorities however. If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. Commonly discriminated minorities have to be protected because they have a right to do what they want as well. Just as you are free to do what you want, but that doesn't include murdering people. You are free to refuse service, but not based on things that mean that person can't get service anywhere. It's not perfect, but it's a solution. Now, of course, that doesn't address another salient question - even if it's legal, why would minorities want restricted events? Well, culture. Obviously in an ideal world events would be open to all and it'd all just work. The reality is, however, that culture can be a barrier. Let's take chess as an example. Chess was male-dominated in part due to lack of education for women and it being seen as a male game. Obviously tournaments today are not restricted to men, but we still see less women. That is, at least in part, because women never get exposed to chess because there is still cultural pressure that it's a "men's game". Women are excluded when they are young and never get a start. The intent of girl's only clubs and tournaments is to encourage women to get into chess, then they integrate into the larger chess scene. As time goes on, the societal stigma lessens and hopefully we end up in that ideal situation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ams6110 9y ago
  > If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. We'll never be rid of all discrimination. It's just a flaw in human nature. We should keep educating and working against it. But I think we're largely past the institutionalized (to say nothing of codified) discrimination of the past centuries.

by CM30 9y ago

mrexroad 9y ago

Opinions about <group>-only events aside, there's a difference between a homogeneous group of people choosing to be together, and a group of individuals who were barred from using specific toilets, water fountains, seats, education opportunities, jobs, etc. Comparing segregation to voluntary <group>-only events is a gross misunderstanding of how things were.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
Well it is my understanding that it was a whites-only back in the day. Now it is a not-whites only which really doesn't seem as different to me as you comment indicates it really is. It is just a different group of people telling others what they can and can't do.
- swampangel 9y ago
  If you were white in 60's America, you didn't have to check ahead of time if a given restaurant would serve you food. If you're white now, you still don't have to check. If you're not white, things are different. Can you think of some examples of when you were unexpectedly forbidden from participating in an event/group/etc? Did you have access to alternatives?
  - ams6110 9y ago
    The 1960s were 50 years ago. You won't experience that today (with very rare exceptions), and that's a good thing. But we can't be forever fixated on things that we've moved past.
    - swampangel 9y ago
      1. The purpose was to illustrate the difference between white-only discrimination (the origin of our current discrimination laws) and modern exclusive group events. 2. There are lots of people who lived through the Civil Rights movement alive today, and segregation and the associated attitudes didn't disappear overnight. Do you think 70 year old politicians carry no baggage from their upbringing and early adulthood?
humanrebar 9y ago
I think you're missing qualifiers there because men-only social clubs, for example, have been frowned upon for quite some time now.
- vec 9y ago
  True, but that's not a gender issue per se. Women-only programming groups are based on the theory that women are not being well served by co-ed programming groups, as a combination of socially enforced gender roles plus an understandable discomfort at being the only woman in a room. All male groups are generally frowned upon because there's no reason to think the average male would be prevented from participating in a technically co-ed but heavily male group. I suspect men-only clubs for traditionally female dominated fields, something like an all male kindergarten teacher group, would be broadly accepted as reasonable.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    > I suspect men-only clubs for traditionally female dominated fields, something like an all male kindergarten teacher group, would be broadly accepted as reasonable. Nursing, home healthcare, child care, veterinary services, social services, and libraries are the other canonical examples besides education of highly women-dominated fields where having male-only employee resource groups might make logical sense. I'm not sure I agree with you that it would be broadly accepted as reasonable, however, even though I personally would find it reasonable.
- swampangel 9y ago
  Since you can't really eliminate backroom dealing, male only social clubs can have the practical effect of excluding women from equal participation/opportunity, at least as long as groups like "C level exec" are disproportionately male.

Latty 9y ago

Then you don't understand the core problem. You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" shtick - people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they are following stupid beliefs. That said, I recognise there are things that have to beat that. Just like free speech doesn't include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, we have to curtail people's right to discriminate where other people's lives are made unlivable because of it. If someone refuses me, the white straight male, the chance to buy something, I go somewhere else. That's not the case for some minorities however. If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. Commonly discriminated minorities have to be protected because they have a right to do what they want as well. Just as you are free to do what you want, but that doesn't include murdering people. You are free to refuse service, but not based on things that mean that person can't get service anywhere. It's not perfect, but it's a solution. Now, of course, that doesn't address another salient question - even if it's legal, why would minorities want restricted events? Well, culture. Obviously in an ideal world events would be open to all and it'd all just work. The reality is, however, that culture can be a barrier. Let's take chess as an example. Chess was male-dominated in part due to lack of education for women and it being seen as a male game. Obviously tournaments today are not restricted to men, but we still see less women. That is, at least in part, because women never get exposed to chess because there is still cultural pressure that it's a "men's game". Women are excluded when they are young and never get a start. The intent of girl's only clubs and tournaments is to encourage women to get into chess, then they integrate into the larger chess scene. As time goes on, the societal stigma lessens and hopefully we end up in that ideal situation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ams6110 9y ago
> If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. True, but socially, we've moved past that. There might be the rare individual baker who would not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, because he's a devout Christian or Muslim or whatever and thinks homosexuality is a sin. But 98% of businesses won't care, as long as you can pay the bill. We'll never be rid of all discrimination. It's just a flaw in human nature. We should keep educating and working against it. But I think we're largely past the institutionalized (to say nothing of codified) discrimination of the past centuries.