4 ms·

Sexist because men aren't welcome? While it would be the case that a social network for men could be considered sexist and maybe this represents a double standa

Sexist because men aren't welcome? While it would be the case that a social network for men could be considered sexist and maybe this represents a double standard, I'm sure there is a very good argument for why networks like Leap aren't sexist, just as there are good arguments for why pro-diversity hiring policies are not necessarily racist.

mlindner 9y ago
> why pro-diversity hiring policies are not necessarily racist Supreme court has also ruled that opposing them because they are racist is also not racist. > It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself. “The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 349 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is precisely this understanding—the correct understanding—of the federal Equal Protection Clause that the people of the State of Michigan have adopted for their own fundamental law. By adopting it, they did not simultaneously offend it.
racer-v 9y ago
I'm sure there are too, I just can't think of any.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  I'll bite. At their heart, all antidiscrimination laws are based on the idea of equalizing power. The law doesn't care if people with one set of genitals doesn't want to hang out with people of another set. What it is concerned about is if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness. Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal, but the reverse would not be true. https://www.acacamps.org/resource-library/campline/single-gender-camps-hiring-employees-gender-appropriate-hiring-criterion https://www.acacamps.org/resource-library/campline/single-ge... Note that, for example, Hooters Rest. lost a discrimination case against males on the grounds that the hiring criteria was unfairly weighted (power applied) towards women (given their ostensible marketing strategy).
  - racer-v 9y ago
    if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness. Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal I'm not sure it's a good idea to enshrine the idea that "Cauc" have an inherent power over "AA" into law. This seems close to running afoul of Equal Protection.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

mlindner 9y ago

> why pro-diversity hiring policies are not necessarily racist Supreme court has also ruled that opposing them because they are racist is also not racist. > It has come to this. Called upon to explore the jurisprudential twilight zone between two errant lines of precedent, we confront a frighteningly bizarre question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? Needless to say (except that this case obliges us to say it), the question answers itself. “The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 349 (2003) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is precisely this understanding—the correct understanding—of the federal Equal Protection Clause that the people of the State of Michigan have adopted for their own fundamental law. By adopting it, they did not simultaneously offend it.

racer-v 9y ago

I'm sure there are too, I just can't think of any.

drewbuschhorn 9y ago
I'll bite. At their heart, all antidiscrimination laws are based on the idea of equalizing power. The law doesn't care if people with one set of genitals doesn't want to hang out with people of another set. What it is concerned about is if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness. Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal, but the reverse would not be true. https://www.acacamps.org/resource-library/campline/single-gender-camps-hiring-employees-gender-appropriate-hiring-criterion https://www.acacamps.org/resource-library/campline/single-ge... Note that, for example, Hooters Rest. lost a discrimination case against males on the grounds that the hiring criteria was unfairly weighted (power applied) towards women (given their ostensible marketing strategy).
- racer-v 9y ago
  if a given group has significant power to prevent another group from pursuing life, lib, and happiness. Viewed from that angle, it becomes clear why antidiscrimination laws favoring AA in traditionally Cauc challenges are legal I'm not sure it's a good idea to enshrine the idea that "Cauc" have an inherent power over "AA" into law. This seems close to running afoul of Equal Protection.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]