Again, we seem to be getting lost in the analogy a bit. My point is, just like we have to defend all of the weaker individuals in these examples, we could scale that up.
A girl is more likely to be raped then a man, so in a risky situation you'd want to defend her more strongly.
In society at large, gays are much more likely to be the victim of discrimination, so we want to defend them more strongly.
Like I said, we need to be more vigilant in protecting the weak from the strong, because, by definition they are weaker. That's why there is a taboo against attacking minority groups that do not go the other way. It's not about morality, but about practicality.
Do you think this would happen in the modern world? I understand how it could happen in the post-Jim Crow south circa 1965(and it still happened anyway, even with anti-discrimination laws; quotas were met and nothing more) but in today's world? Is there rampant examples of gay people losing their jobs because they come out as gay?
Thankfully no. But that doesn't mean it can't again. I think Nazi Germany is the best example of a case where a seemingly modern society took a slide way back. Also keep in mind that the middle east was not as super fundamentalist and crazy as it is now till about the 50's when they took a step way back.
I don't think that we're going to be in a situation like that in the near future, but I think that part of why we won't be is because we take it seriously when we see that kind of stuff happening.
Jobs are also about money. If you are qualified and making them money, no rational employer is going to let you go because you are gay or black. It is only in organizations that don't wish to purely profit that we see gay people fired for being gay (and these are mostly religious organizations.) I think the cultural environment can handle this. Also, it neither reality that a whole class of people will be pushed out of a job market in today's world. Most corporations see the backlash that would come with one of their managers firing somebody for being gay, black, or a woman and have much more stringent (and enforceable) policies on it than anti-discrimination laws.
Not all employers are rational. I would guess you've seen a situation where a person gets a promotion over another when they're less qualified. Is it realistic that a whole race or group will be blackballed from a profession? No. But it shouldn't even be possible. We've seen lots of irrational stuff happen in the world.
Yes, how a boss (and your coworkers) view you and how you live your life can affect how they interact with you at work. Even if the government weren't involved, most bosses wouldn't have "complete and total authority" over who they want to hire. They have rules in place by the organization they are part of.
But then the boss of the organization would have complete and total authority.
I think all individuals should have the freedom to associate (or not associate) with whom they want. If a person has a small business and they don't want to hire black people, so be it, but when they see themselves out of business because of public backlash, they can't blame anybody but themselves. If they are out of business because the government shuts them down, then they hold that resentment toward the government and fuel more racism. Social osctracization and cutting into one's pocket is much more motivating than laws that can be avoided. But I guess, my question is, do you think anti-discrimination laws prevent discrimination? I don't think they do. They just make people hide their discrimination under false justifications. "I didn't fire him because he was black, I fired him because he came to work late x number of days" Meanwhile the white guy might had come to work late twice as much, but because the employer doesn't want to fire him nor does he need an excuse he gets away with it. Without strong proof, and there never really is, the law isn't really enforceable, and because they must hide it, people can't punish them socially. I love it when bakeries don't sell to gay people, because I know there will be backlash. Heck just look at the recent backlash (in Southern states no less) with regards to transexual bathroom discrimination laws. People have progressed culturally enough to be trusted with freedom.
I can't honestly answer that question. I really don't know. It is pretty clear that over the last 50 years or so we have much less discrimination in terms of hiring. It's hard to say if that's because of the laws or simply because of changing social attitudes. You're talking about mostly service based industries which rely on general public support. It may be easier to get away with in different businesses. In the case you gave, the black person would at least have some hope of legal recourse if there was a law on the book.
This works with hard sciences, often social sciences have conflicting data due to poor methodology and complexities. There are many more lurking variables. In this case I don't think there is sufficient data to say anyone thing contributes to the wage-gap, but there is sufficient data to say that many different things contribute a little bit to it, and it adds up.
Fair enough. That's one example anyway. I think overall it's hard to argue that men are not the more socially powerful group.
In 2015, 8,907 woman (47.6%) and 9798 men graduated Medical School in the U.S. In comparison, in 2013 20% of Physics bachelor's were women, 38% Earth Science Bachelor's were women, 48% of chemistry bachelor's were women, 19% of engineering bachelor's were women, and 42% of math and statistics bachelor's were women. I can't find any data on graduate school, but the percentages are probably smaller if I were to hazard a guess.
I would be curious to see if these percentages are consistent with the workforce. Women have been overrepresented in colleges in general for a while now, but I don't know if that has translated to the workplace.
Why not instead of taking a "special effort" instead we take a stance that violence against every one, and the incitement thereof is bad, regardless?
Because when one group is particularly targeted, we have to make sure our prevention efforts are focused on that. We don't really need to say "all sexual abuse is bad" because, while it happens to men, the victims are overwhelmingly female. If it's females who are most vulnerable, that has to be reflected in the discussion.
I mean, we could fight for laws to protect heterosexual rights in the workplace, but would that really be the best use of our time and energy?
Bulimia (and eating disorders in general) can be caused by much more than society rewarding people for being skinny.
Socialcultural ideals are only one of many reasons why a woman might be bulimic. Since we don't know and can't know who or who doesn't have these mental problems, we should treat attacks on people for being skinny the same as we do for people who are overweight, as horrible body-shaming.
I would have to look into it, but if I were a betting man I would guess that the amount of skinny people who feel negative because of being underweight is much less than the reverse.
I don't view this as a power thing. It a normativity thing. Heterosexuals face fewer problems because they are normal. Not necessarily because they hold more power. It is also evidenced by the crazy number of closeted homosexual people who were/are homophobic. Often these people are leaders in the suppression of other homosexuals.
I think being normativity is tied into that power. The fact that more people are heterosexual is part of why that group is far more powerful. Which is why it's hard to imagine any scenario in which gay people will weild significantly more power than heterosexuals, and why heterosexuals really don't need much protection.
Malicious homosexuals might not be able to target heterosexuals, but they do target other people whom they view as different or non-existant, particularly bisexuals. Homosexuals and bisexuals historically faced the same problems with respect to heterosexuals. They are equally "powerful." Nevertheless, many gay and lesbian people have strong prejudices and disdain for bisexuals, because they believe bisexuals are just closeted homosexuals who don't know what they want, are greedy, or for a plethora of other reasons. This is explainable via normativity (homosexuals are more populous and accepted in society than bisexuals) and therefore some homosexual people feel threatened by bisexuals, very much in the same way some heterosexuals are by homosexuals. To them, anything that is different is weird, and must not exist -- those people are just confused or liars. I think that is the root of it. Homophobia (and bi?phobia) are just subsets of xenophobia. And I also don't think something necessarily has to be violent for it to be bad.
Interesting, but I'm not quite seeing the connection. I'm not saying something has to be violent to be bad, but violence is just the clearest example to work with.
Which begs the question. How prevelant is organized hate-crime versus individual instances of malious, today? Let's ditch the gay vs. straight people scenario, because there really isn't an organized group of gay people with animosity towards straight people. How about we talk about black lives matters. They see things quite often in black vs. white. One can see in many of the more extreme subsets of black lives matters phrases like "kill all white people" or even debate at Harvard (of all places) about whether or not white people have a "right to affirm their lives." Sure, they might not be able to act on this at the moment, but who isn't to say they won't act on it in the future if they get desperate? Telling a group of people they are constantly oppressed and marginalized by another certainly does much to radicalize them. I hope this is the extent of it, and I know the overwhelming majority of people will remain reasonable.
It makes sense to think of things in power structures if there was a race war of every white person versus. every black person, but that isn't how these hate crimes work. Often it is a small group attacking individuals in another group. That is why I don't think any racism is any worse or better than any other. Racism is no longer a popular movement, it is a movement for fringes.
The OP seemed more concerned with general patterns in society than individual attacks. Systematic oppression is a different issue than individual attacks. Not completely exclusive, but different. So, that's why I focused on that. I don't think any form of racism is "better" than another, but some types are more dangerous. As for racism being on the fringes, I dunno about that. But even if it is, it could make a comeback real quick. Again, to the Nazi Germany example, if there is serious economic or social strife, racism tends to thrive.
Also I want to dispute your claim "a girl is more likely to get raped than a man." If you include prison-rape statistics, men are sexually assaulted just as often as women.
We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men.
Eh... if you want to count prison rape, I can just say "men are more likely to commit rape than women" :p
Personally, I don't think prison rape should be included. Not like it's not a problem or anything, but if we're talking about preventing rape and sexual violence I don't think it makes sense to address both those problems together. I think we both understood what we were thinking of when we were talking about rape and sexual violence and I don't think we were (I wasn't at least) thinking of prison rape. Especially in the context of this conversation, I don't think it would make sense to include a nearly all male environment.
If you want to be technical about it maybe you're right. To be clear, I was excluding prison rape from the equation, and unless otherwise noted, I'll be doing that pretty much always.