Please Sign This Petition, Racism/Sexism Isn't Okay If Its Against Straight White Men

[WhiteNachos]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

 

[maninahat]

snip

You mean the politically accepted way of eliminating the problem. If you believe in laws that censor what you can say will help such things, you're actively supporting fascism, because the right to free speech is the first right a free people lose. As to your analogy, it's flawed in the fact that if you give a racer who had weights on their feet a motor bike it's cheating, specifically cheating the other racers, along with the disadvantaged one..

I'm not sure where free speech even comes into it. As to the motorbike being introduced to the analogy, are you trying to tell me that black people and women have been given a ridiculous advantage that has allowed them to race far ahead of white males?

Affirmative action doesn't do anyone any good, at least not in the way it's used, that being to enforce diversity to win votes, all it serves to do i put poorly equipped people in situations they can't handle.

I am quite familiar with the diversity and positive action laws in the UK (I work in recruitment). The law does not permit positive discrimination to the point that we can automatically give jobs freely to totally incompetent minority workers - that would actually be illegal. At their most generous, the legislation stipulates three main things: 1) If given two equally viable employees for a new post, it is better to pick the one from an under-represented, protected group (but only if all else is the same). 2) Any efforts to prioritize one group over another for a job has to be thoroughly justifiable (i.e., looking specifically for a black Councillor to work at a business that exclusively deals with black people's social issues). 3) The two ticks scheme, which permits a disabled person a guaranteed automatic interview for a job (if they wish it to be so), but only as long as they meet the selection criteria for the job.

Most affirmative action requires no effort on the part of the oppressed, it's a freebie.

I'm doubtful. Do you have examples?

Simply put double standards aren't healthy for society in general, and they uplift no one. They just give disadvantaged people the justification to become the next set of oppressors. What does work is holding everyone to the same standard and giving those with disadvantages tools that help them in their quest to be in a better place. Moving the goal posts doesn't help people.

Last time I checked, black people weren't all holding the top jobs, and women are woefully under-represented in the most influential and powerful roles. They are a long way away from calling all the shots. Affirmative action legislation didn't just suddenly appear out of the ether. People saw that treating everyone equally wasn't necessarily creating an equal society; that social mobility is limited and the downtrodden and poor tend to stay poor. Disadvantaged groups generally stay disadvantaged, because removing Jim Crow laws does not fix the issues of poor access to better education, housing, protection, health, jobs and the general means of self-improvement. They saw it was necessary to even the odds to some extent, even if that means giving those minorities some advantages to catch up and mitigate the historical advantage white males have long had.

 

[maninahat]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

Here are some sources. [http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf]

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

I think the definition is meant to be specifically about those groups which society has historically deemed to be the ones in power, based on arbitrary attributes (i.e. in America, being white, male, heterosexual, able bodied, wealthy, and cis-gendered), as opposed to individuals who hold positions of power (like teachers and judges). Thus, a black person might not be able to be racist in modern day America, however, they could in modern day Zimbabwe, under Mugabe's rule.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

I guess it would depend on what exactly was being said. A woman could still be racist, a black man still sexist, despite both being from protected groups.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You mean the politically accepted way of eliminating the problem. If you believe in laws that censor what you can say will help such things, you're actively supporting fascism, because the right to free speech is the first right a free people lose. As to your analogy, it's flawed in the fact that if you give a racer who had weights on their feet a motor bike it's cheating, specifically cheating the other racers, along with the disadvantaged one..

I'm not sure where free speech even comes into it. As to the motorbike being introduced to the analogy, are you trying to tell me that black people and women have been given a ridiculous advantage that has allowed them to race far ahead of white males?

The whole discussion started over a matter of bigoted hate speech, which indeed is both racist and sexist, regardless of privilege.

Affirmative action doesn't do anyone any good, at least not in the way it's used, that being to enforce diversity to win votes, all it serves to do i put poorly equipped people in situations they can't handle.

I am quite familiar with the diversity and positive action laws in the UK (I work in recruitment). The law does not permit positive discrimination to the point that we can automatically give jobs freely to totally incompetent minority workers - that would actually be illegal. At their most generous, the legislation stipulates three main things: 1) If given two equally viable employees for a new post, it is better to pick the one from an under-represented, protected group (but only if all else is the same). 2) Any efforts to prioritize one group over another for a job has to be thoroughly justifiable (i.e., looking specifically for a black Councillor to work at a business that exclusively deals with black people's social issues). 3) The two ticks scheme, which permits a disabled person a guaranteed automatic interview for a job (if they wish it to be so), but only as long as they meet the selection criteria for the job.

That would then depend on finding people with the exact same amount of experience in the disadvantaged group as the non-disadvantaged group. An unlikely situation. That is unless you need a specific person for a specific job. An interview is not getting the job. Essentially this is not affirmative action, at least not as much as it is preventing discrimination due to race. Unless the White Man in a hypothetical situation is competing with an equally qualified, say, Black Woman. In which case the interview of both is required to make any determination on who is right for the job in the environment. The problem is that if the hypothetical Black Woman in this case is passed over because the White Man had a better interview, the Black Woman will likely cry racism, or/and sexism. Just because, privilege.

Most affirmative action requires no effort on the part of the oppressed, it's a freebie.

I'm doubtful. Do you have examples?

Only personal ones I'm afraid. Anecdotal evidence of Filipinos being favored by a former boss of mine over any other candidates. But affirmative action also just has a rather threatening history because people will cry discrimination if denied a job for reasons of qualification. The opposite sure happened too, but there isn't an easy fix this.

Simply put double standards aren't healthy for society in general, and they uplift no one. They just give disadvantaged people the justification to become the next set of oppressors. What does work is holding everyone to the same standard and giving those with disadvantages tools that help them in their quest to be in a better place. Moving the goal posts doesn't help people.

Last time I checked, black people weren't all holding the top jobs, and women are woefully under-represented in the most influential and powerful roles. They are a long way away from calling all the shots. Affirmative action legislation didn't just suddenly appear out of the ether. People saw that treating everyone equally wasn't necessarily creating an equal society; that social mobility is limited and the downtrodden and poor tend to stay poor. Disadvantaged groups generally stay disadvantaged, because removing Jim Crow laws does not fix the issues of poor access to better education, housing, protection, health, jobs and the general means of self-improvement. They saw it was necessary to even the odds to some extent, even if that means giving those minorities some advantages to catch up and mitigate the historical advantage white males have long had.

No but equalizing the situation is not holding one group to different standards as another either, it's actually leveling out the standards. Equality legislation isn't affirmative action, at least speaking in the vernacular of it's use, the term is usually used to classify the use of legal threat to favor disadvantaged groups. Which has happened, at least here state side at the state level.

Edit:

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

Here are some sources. [http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf]

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

I think the definition is meant to be specifically about those groups which society has historically deemed to be the ones in power, based on arbitrary attributes (i.e. in America, being white, male, heterosexual, able bodied, wealthy, and cis-gendered), as opposed to individuals who hold positions of power (like teachers and judges). Thus, a black person might not be able to be racist in modern day America, however, they could in modern day Zimbabwe, under Mugabe's rule.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

I guess it would depend on what exactly was being said. A woman could still be racist, a black man still sexist, despite both being from protected groups.

That's actually a cop out argument based on changing the standards regarding wording. It doesn't change the actual definition of the use of the words.

Edit #2: Read your source in the link provided. Saw the sorriest cop out, mentality of victimization, and justification in any piece I've ever seen in my entire life. Calling someone who doesn't practice racism a racist for being born in a privileged skin color is justification of hate. That justification of hate is fallacious at it's very core.

 

[The_Darkness]

Okay. For whatever it's worth, here's my take.

The facebook event itself:

This was, apparently, a "Safe Space" event for BME (Black or Minority Ethnic) women. In short: non-white women only, and no men. Here's the thing - speaking as a White Male, I'm completely okay with an event like that.

The purpose of this Safe Space was to ensure that any BME women who attended could be *completely* free from the discrimination that they may face. Hence, as a precautionary measure, someone like me shouldn't be there. I'm fine with that. Just as I'm fine with leaving the room when someone else wants privacy. That's what this was - a private space. I appreciate private spaces when I need them, so I really can't begrudge them to other people.

And also, the very next sentence in the event description was a promise that other events were on the way for people excluded from this one. Funny how the petition fails to include that line.

So the event doesn't bother me. The rest... DOES.

However, I will agree that the "No White and/or Male people please" message probably should have been written with a better explanation of why. Then again, maybe it was - I can't check the event itself, only the quotes that have been mined from it.

White-Cis-Male-Tears:

This was... unprofessional at best. And, again speaking as a white male, I do find it mildly offensive. Mildly, but yeah. As I understand it, this, and #KillAllWhiteMen, are in-jokes in certain corners of the equality movement. 'Die Cis Scum' is another one. And Bahar Mustafa shouldn't face the full blame for this - these in-jokes have been around for a while.

The point is supposed to be that discriminated groups face far worse than this, and these comments should remind us of that, and remind us that stuff needs to be done about that discrimination. Well, that and it's a way for them to express frustration at the privilege difference.

And, well, I can understand all that BUT that doesn't make it remotely okay. It's hypocritical to simultaneously call for an end to discrimination and then openly discriminate against a group. Negative Discrimination like this isn't okay, regardless of which group is on the receiving end.

It also sends a message to any white/straight/cis/male/privileged people that already want to help fight racism/sexism/etc. And that message is: "You aren't welcome in the equality movement." That's really not a good message to be sending out.

Bahar presumably felt that she was just using an ironic joke. And I can understand that, but it doesn't make it okay. The existence of these jokes - and the belief that they are somehow 'okay' - troubles me far more than a Safe Space event that wasn't meant for me.

Defining Racism and Sexism:

Okay, this was a painful example of dodging the point, to the extent that I'm not even sure that Bahar realised that she was doing it.

Fine. There are academic definitions of Racism and Sexism that require them to be coming from a place of privilege. And those are the definitions that Bahar wished to use. Fine. I can accept that.

It doesn't change the fact that the in-jokes are examples of negative racial/sexual discrimination. Which is what everyone meant when they were accusing Bahar of being racist/sexist.

You can't just say "that isn't what that word means to me". You have to understand what the people using the words mean, and answer to that.

I always err on the side of giving someone I disagree with the benefit of the doubt. Doing so generally makes me think my arguments through more. So I'm going to assume that Bahar felt that she was being accused of racism/sexism primarily over the event itself, rather than the in-jokes. And if so, I would agree with her that the event itself wasn't racist/sexist.

But if she thought that she was defending the event, then she was already missing the point, and I can understand further the missing the point with the definitions of racism/sexism. Either way, she completely failed to address the actual complaint.

The Internet:

For crying out loud, there have been requests for this woman to be... well, I actually don't want to repeat what I've seen. The point is that the internet outrage machine has once again jumped to harassment as its first resort against anything that offends it. Come on, people, we're better than this.

A lot of it is just hyperbole, but it is some of the sickest, most debased hyperbole around. If you disagree with someone, if you're offended by someone, that doesn't justify this. Don't insult them - that doesn't help. Explain why you disagree, why you feel offended - even if it seems blatantly obvious to you - and leave it at that. Nothing gets solved by shouting at each other - but we can solve a lot by just talking. Most people get taught this at Primary School level, and the existence of the internet is no reason to discard it.

(This last section isn't targeted at The Escapist forums, but at the internet in general. However, I guess it's The Escapist forums that that will see it, so... pass this along if you agree with it? I'm getting really tired of seeing outraged-hyperbole-harassment as the internet's weapon of first resort.)

 

[Vigormortis]

You find a lot of this in tumblr feminists, also feminist frequency tweeted this sentiment once.

I use this as a measuring stick as to whether or not to take a feminist seriously.

Patriarchy and rape culture may be vague things and they may not be falsifiable but saying that women can't be sexist or only white people can be racist is just a blatant denial of reality.

Thing is, there are forms of racism/sexism that are based around societal structures of privilege. She's not entirely wrong on that part. But for her to imply that it's the only form of "legitimate" racism and sexism is just....patently absurd, to a degree I'm ashamed to see within academia.

And for her to stand there crying about privilege-based racism and sexism, while she comes from a family of wealth and power, and is attending an expensive school of higher-learning, is just appalling.

I usually abhor violence, but if I ever met her in real life and had her insult me by saying, "Check your privilege", I might give serious consideration to slapping her. She seems like someone in desperate need of a dose of reality.

 

[Mikeybb]

<snipped for space, all a good read though>

(This last section isn't targeted at The Escapist forums, but at the internet in general. However, I guess it's The Escapist forums that that will see it, so... pass this along if you agree with it? I'm getting really tired of seeing outraged-hyperbole-harassment as the internet's weapon of first resort.)

Quoting that to chorus in my agreement.
Whatever happens as a result of her careless wording at best and woeful people management skills, less over the top reaction would be nice.

Slight off topic, but I sometimes wonder if the reason the internet relies on such exaggerated actions is a result of the way that it propagates the use of exaggeration as a tool of communication?
With the absence of, for the most part, visual clues to emotional expression, instead hyperbole takes that place.
Of course, it doesn't excuse the excesses and darkest turns, but it may go some way to explaining where it comes from.

(a semi non sequitur, I've spoken to people who used to use 'lol' with more frequency than punctuation. It always amused me to think they weren't actually exaggerating and were indeed sitting, laughing loudly like a mad person every ten seconds.)

Sorry for the slight off topic there.
Posting while tired and vulnerable to fits of rambling.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Our culture most certainly has affection and respect for women and minorities, as long as they behave in the way it wants them to behave. Not only are they punished for disobeying it, they are rewarded for reinforcing it.

Replace 'women and minorities' with 'people' and the statement is still true. Why single out those two?

...Because we're talking about racism and sexism. The topic of conversation is how women and minorities are treated differently, and more specifically, how that fact does not prevent them from negatively influencing the situation.

The overall point of the comment is a unifying one; remember who the enemy is. It isn't the particular shade that prejudice takes today, it's prejudice itself. And, judging by your response, you know that. When I mention the web of lies, the fact that it affects EVERYONE is precisely my point.

ALL are subject to cultural coercion. The comparison between male and female is not quantitative, can't be measured, unless we agree that every single person has the exact same goals in life. Life isn't a race to the top of the ladder, despite the common belief that it is.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

If this new definition of racism is truely what the academics have agreed on, that you can only be racist if you live in the right place and HAVE THE RIGHT SKIN COLOUR to qualify.... Then the new definition of racism is racist and they need to change the definition back. Saying only a white man can be racist is deeply wrong in my eyes.

I feel like if the pendulum swings too far in the other direction and the straight white man loses all their privalege this perception that only they can be racist/sexit could stick around longer than the actual privelege and become a real problem for future generations if we let it go too far.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Yeah if need to tell people you're not white you're white.

And if you white, then you Ben Affleck.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Racism and sexism are racism and sexism, regardless of whether the victim of it is an otherkin genderfluid pansexual woman or a straight, white dude.

Don't draw more and more lines in the sand so that you can insult people who fit into majorities. Because then you're a piece of shit. There are just some people who will congratulate and idolise you for fitting into as many obscure minorities and possible. This has gone too far.

 

[sumanoskae]

Our culture most certainly has affection and respect for women and minorities, as long as they behave in the way it wants them to behave. Not only are they punished for disobeying it, they are rewarded for reinforcing it.

Replace 'women and minorities' with 'people' and the statement is still true. Why single out those two?

...Because we're talking about racism and sexism. The topic of conversation is how women and minorities are treated differently, and more specifically, how that fact does not prevent them from negatively influencing the situation.

The overall point of the comment is a unifying one; remember who the enemy is. It isn't the particular shade that prejudice takes today, it's prejudice itself. And, judging by your response, you know that. When I mention the web of lies, the fact that it affects EVERYONE is precisely my point.

ALL are subject to cultural coercion. The comparison between male and female is not quantitative, can't be measured, unless we agree that every single person has the exact same goals in life. Life isn't a race to the top of the ladder, despite the common belief that it is.

Again, not seeing how how I said anything to the contrary of that.

 

[sumanoskae]

snip

Ahhh it seems I misread that then, my apologies. However, while I do agree that the government should not be able to force people to go to was, I was forced to sign up for Selective Service like everyone else and so, if women are capable of serving in the armed forces as all evidence suggests, wouldn't equality under the law dictate that they should also have to register into selected service? Either the government treats everyone equally under the law or it should be thrown out.

As well as that, you cannot fight a mindset, you cannot fight an idea (*Rolls to resist a V for Vendetta reference*). As soon as you do that it gets ugly very quickly. Because there will ALWAYS be people who either take it too far and make a smaller and smaller list of what 'acceptable' mindsets are and you don't want to give those people even a taste of power. Not only this but there will always be the opposite people as well. The UK shows well that attempting to shut down opposing views forcefully (The BNP and UKIP) often increases support for them as some people defend the group they see as a 'victim' of the establishment. Not that those people are right but human minds are tricky things and lead to odd results like this.

And... well Prejudice is natural. Call me a cynic but the Ingroup-Outgroup response is damn near hardwired into our minds and it requires an awful lot of knowledge and willpower to overcome it. These responses will always lead to prejudice of some degree against the 'other', the people outside of the 'ingroup' even more so if they can be classed as an 'outgroup' or, an 'enemy' for the ingroup to rally against. Whenever you eliminate some kind of prejudice these pieces of the human psyche will always ensure that we have some kind of division between groups. Managing these divisions so that multiple groups can work together within a larger group is called Civilisation and/or Politics.

But still, even knowing that such things are natural. The person who decided to make such divisions a core part of the rhetoric towards her student body was simply stirring such problems and making them much stronger than they needed to be.

I would argue that it is equally natural for humans to break down barriers between each other. Things like the Civil Rights movement are every bit a part of our programming as things like the KKK. It's a perpetual struggle, but we can't help but take a side; it's in our nature.

People are often quick to incite all the negative aspects of our behavior as a result of instinct, and characterize instinct itself as base; what many fail to mention is that not all instinct is base. Our intellect, sense of justice, capability for compassion, and thirst for self improvement are all instinctual in their own right.

It is my firm opinion that almost every aspect of life is cyclical; a cyclic environment, it could be argued, is the basis of all life, in fact. By extension, ideas are like matter; they can never be destroyed, only change form. For this reason, I champion causes like the denouncement of stereotypes not because I see a light at the end of the tunnel, but because the journey itself has value. The struggle against ignorance has no end.

As for the issue of military, while it certainly would be a more equal and logical situation if both men and women could be drafted, the underlying system is so foul that I will support any opportunity that exists to escape it. The end result of women being drafted is just that they are exploited in the same way men have been; it will not improve the lot of the poor souls who have already been made victims, and the only blood that will be shed will be yet more innocent blood.

There is no honor or justice to be had with a system this intrinsically oppressive. The system itself is unfair, it is not concerned with justice. If it suddenly decided to treat everyone as equally worthless, it wouldn't become fair or just to treat them as such. It doesn't need to be improved, it needs to be destroyed.