JWeinCom said:
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.
|
It matters when it is a business association and not personal. If I get a PHD in medicine and I'm black and people won't hire black doctors, then my PHD is worth less than a white person's PHD. If nobody will hire a black doctor, then it makes my PHD worthless. That definitely inhibits or prevents me from enjoying the fruit of my hard work. I'm working more for a less valuable degree.
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?
Jobs are limited. I've had to work with people I didn't particularly like. It's not about standards, it's about oppurtunity. Plus, if we allow this kind of discrimination, then there is nothing to stop a particular industry from completely blackballing a certain group. It's be great if we lived in a world where jobs were so abundant that we just work for people who approved us, but that's not reality.
I've had terrible jobs with bosses I loved and jobs I love with bosses I've hated. Whether my boss approves of my sexuality doesn't determine how much I want the job, nor should it. As for the fourteenth ammendment, it has been ruled to apply in a wide array of circumstances. Whether you agree with that or not, it's the precedent. There are also other antidiscrimination laws on the books in many places.
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.
Do you think a person should have to be concerned about whether or not their boss approves of their lifestyle? Moreover should the boss hold complete and total authority over who they want to hire? Do you think this makes for the best possible society? I don't think so. If you don't agree, we'll have to leave it at that.
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.
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.
Whether or not its true or not depends on if the data supports it. If you have data to back it up, it is what it is. If not, it's bias that could be harmful.
As for motivation it can change somewhat, but it's also partially inborn. It depends a lot on certain chemicals (seratonin I believe) that vary naturally between people. Not the place to discuss it, but it's a gray area with nature and nurture.
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.
By medical, does that mean doctor, nurse, or medical assistant? That makes this difference. The reason why there are organizations at the higher level is that, at least in this country, there is not much encouragement at the lower level. They are trying now to change that, but it's a work in progress.
Like I said, if what you said is actually true, then that's data, and I can't fight it. If not, it can be a self fulfilling prophecy. I'll check out the links you gave later. Definitely interesting stuff.
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.
We're getting individuals and groups confused. I was talking mainly about groups, with individuals serving as examples.
It's important the rights of the powerful group are protected... but they're not in danger. So we don't really need to put in any special effort to protecting them. By virtue of being the strong group they are not at risk. If situations change then we might change our stances.
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?
If the blonde girl is bulimic, then that would be because of her wanting to be thinner. This is a REAL problem that is a result of our push for thinness, and is part of the reason why we need to be more cautious about attacking overweight people, especially if they're not actually overweight. And, I didn't assume her position in life is great because she's thin. Just that she MOST LIKELY wouldn't be upset by comments about her weight in particular.
As an aside, weight is something I personally struggle with, so maybe my views are skewing this.
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.
The key word there is given a chance. You can think of individual examples I'm sure. There are some really buff gay guys. But in general heterosexuals wield much more power and are more able to impose their will. There aren't a whole lot of people who feel they have to hide their heterosexuality, or get bullied for dating the opposite gender, get kicked out of their home for it, commit suicide etc. Heterosexuals generally don't have any special problems, so they don't need any extra defending.
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.
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.
Right. In almost all circumstances, a five year old can't really beat the shit out of his mother. Just like gays, as a group, really can't do much to really hurt the heterosexual community at large.
If a black man or men wanted to kill white people (lets assume the black group is armed) then the white people are weaker in this circumstance and should be defended. As a group though, black people are weaker than white people. So, when we're talking about the group, black people typically need to be defended more strongly
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.
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.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&
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.
