Hatred or Anger?

[AnomalousMaterial]

This is pathetic.

Frame a counter argument or logical criticism and I'll stop considering you pathetic.

 

[Unkotare]

 

[IM2]

Plenty of black people have or have had jobs. What in the hell are you talking about? Denying someone a job strictly because of their race is illegal, and then there is AA!

You outta know about AA white woman since white females are the biggest benefactor of the policy So then don't talk about AA only when the conversation is about blacks. You ask a question. I am telling you that blacks aren't socially isolated and that white racism plays a part in the situation blacks face today. You are white and misinformed. Any white female who only thinks AA applies only to blacks is really too damned stupid to try holding a conversation with me on this matter. Murder is illegal and it still happens. So think about that .each time you try that excuse to deny white racism against people of color.

I most certainly CAN talk about AA. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot talk about? And you have the NERVE to ask me to give you money? You cannot be serious. Lol. For WHAT exactly? Why should any white people have to give you any money? You are a free person. Go get a job.

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

 

[IM2]

This is pathetic.

Frame a counter argument or logical criticism and I'll stop considering you pathetic.

I don't care what you consider me. You're an idiot.

 

[Gracie]

I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here.

Then take it up with your own people in Africa who were the sellers in the first place.

Nope. Whites bought the slaves. And slavery is not all that happened.. So then I will take it up with the modern whites because they are still practicing racism.

Bullshit. Read up on your history. Blacks warred with other blacks, and sold the conquered to WHOMEVER would buy them, or those who would indenture them until they paid off their debt for eating, drinking, clothing, and the fare on the ship....which is what happened to the Irish IF they could ever get out of that debt hole. Do you see Irish folks here bitching about their indentures? Stop whining about something that happened due to YOUR PEOPLE who happened to find BUYERS for what they SOLD.

 

[AnomalousMaterial]

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

Let's look into the facts you've given to support your argument. This is going to be a long post. Loooooonnnnnnnnnggggggg.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

Going in to this one you should immediately note that this was published in the "ideas." section, meaning the editors did not qualify it for use as a real informational article. This is an opinion piece, for reasons I will explain, culminating in the final statement of my review piece.

The first "source" (The Death of Affirmative Action, Part 1 – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education) is a blogpost opinion piece which does not use facts, figures, citations, or references to make any claims. The only link that source provides is to an article which provides links to two other opinion blogs, and ultimately claims that Asian-Americans are preyed upon by Affirmative Action programs which select lesser-qualified Blacks and Hispanics before Asians
Rating: 2/10 - providing no facts backed by data or sources, using a single also dubious source as sole reference

The second source (Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action) immediately invalidates itself as used by Time by ignoring relative population. The phrase "the majority of whom were white" gives absolutely NO DETAIL as to the relevant fractions by race, and logically it should be assumed that since African-Americans are ~15% of the population, there will always be a majority of white women as compared to blacks in college. In fact the author's article simply states, using a reference to a study which cannot be found on the open internet, the exact phrase Time used. This is a circular argument which cannot be correlated with data, rendering the entire use of that source null and void
Rating - 1/10 misused data from now defunct sources making a broad claim which ignores population numbers.


The third and final source used by this Time article (Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC) is already a biased source. While logically this instantly discredits claims or 'facts' presented as dubious at best, I'll continue to review. to begin with the NWLC is using almost twenty year old data to frame their argument. Next, and equally as important, they are using data which does not accurately control for hours worked or educational attainment (for example equating all jobs which qualify as "physician" as the same). This source then goes on to NOT talk about racial disparity among females via AA, invalidating it's use as a data source for your argument.
Rating: 3/10 - many confusing source links to old data sets which do not exhibit proper control factors, but good data to show women are advancing in professional careers at a great pace

The Time article therefore is completely useless in proving that white women are, essentially, abusing Affirmative Action.

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

I don't even have to research the sources, the article's target is not compatible with yours. The main target of the [quoted portion of the] article is two points
- Women earn less than men while graduating at higher rates
- White Women in general argue against Affirmative Action

I answered in part why women tend to earn less than men on another thread while breaking down statistics by race and gender, using empirical data from a first party source. Check my history.
White women arguing against AA would imply disturbing things if it fit your narrative. On one hand it means that white women, through all their education in college, both abuse a system and at the same time are denouncing a system which benefits their interests. This is not logically compatible unless we make some rather sexist claims about the intelligence of women, and of white women.

Finally, the last source used by HuffPo is the State of Qatar Government's media mouthpiece, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera frequently self-sources, and likes to source from within "friendly" publication channels such as Vox and, (shocking!) Huffington Post.
Yes, this invalidates Al Jazeera.

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

Ah finally, the big one. The only cited article which attempts to back up your morbid claim. Let's start from the bottom and work our way up.

Source five, going from the bottom up, (http://civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/fact-sheets/fact_sheet_packet.pdf) is no longer accessible. Therefore we cannot refute the validity, which serves fairly well, I think we can both agree that "executives of color" were simply less abundant to be hired because less of them exist. Simple math from population numbers, as I stated before. I remind you that in the absence of data we should adhere to Occam's Razor.

Source three AND four (Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC) are the same NWLC article I thrashed in the review of Time's choice of source data. Specifically in these claims, they establish that women in high positions grew greatly, and referring to directly above, we cannot make any claims as to the proportionality of race due to sources no longer existing. They state prior that not only did female employment in federal sectors rise dramatically, it is impossible to make any race-based claims using the source data. Invalidation of a claim that AA is helping white women more.

Source one AND two are both the primary Time article AND it's primary data source reviewed in the Time breakdown above.
The repetition of a false claim only further cements the logical fallacy that a claim has to be correct if repeated often enough, for if enough lemmings choose to run off the cliff, surely the rest of us must follow?

Above all the astute reader would notice that many of the "sources" in all three of these articles round-robin each other, both in history described and in some cases source links. This points to a collusion of interest among all parties, invalidating their use as a fair and unbiased source for information.

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your claim has been debunked using your own data.

 

[Divine Wind]

Let's cut to the chase: Do you agree that people should be admitted or employed based solely on their qualifications such SAT scores and entrance exam tests or do you think some groups of people need a "boost" or should be admitted even if less qualified?

Ok let's cut to the chase. Do you not understand that since 1776 up until today whites are admitted and employed based upon a boost they get because of their skin color regardless, whether or not they are less qualified?

So, every white person anywhere in the US who got a job today only did so because of their skin color? Is that your position?

That's exactly what he is saying. Additionally, he's saying any black man who has failed only failed because of white people, therefore, according to him, all white people owe all black people "reparations".

Of course, he's never stated a figure of how much each white person owes each black person nor what happens afterward or whether it would bankrupt the nation causing even more misery on all Americans.

No that is what YOU are saying. I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here. it is a human rights violation. I have also stated that Indians get reparations annually, and the Japanese got them for being interred in camps. So then you really have no rightful objection to us asking for reparations. If no one else had ever got them, you could make the argument you are making. The nation is not bankrupting itself paying the Indians every year. So then you really make no sense.

I believe reparations should be made by the government reinvesting in inner cities that they flooded with drugs and abandoned. Reinvestment would not bankrupt the nation because the creation of good paying jobs would mean people would be paying taxes and buying goods as their income increases. It is necessary.

Disagreed since "the government" didn't flood the cities with drugs nor did they force anyone to take drugs.

OTOH, I do agree that reinvesting in inner cities and other poor areas of the nation would be a good investment since it turns a liability into an asset. It doesn't matter if it's Detroit or the Appalachians, we have too many Americans who are not able to be good taxpayers.

There are multiple problems with doing this, of course, with a big one being cost. Do we want the Feds to dictate to the states on how to spend money and overrun state authority on this issue? No. So how do we do it?

 

[Divine Wind]

You've done none of that. My understanding of percentages is outstanding. What I am saying is that 100 percent of all eligible applicants for admission are not white. I also say that whites will always have most of the high test scores because there are more of them. I am also saying that SAT scores have never been the sole determinant of anything, they have been used since 1926, no one white was complaining about SAT scores for the 40 years before the civil rights act allowed blacks into colleges and the only reason why racists like you argue SAT scores is just that, you are a racist that wants 100 percent white enrollment into college. Whites are 70 percent of all college students in America. That's counting students attending historically black colleges. So there are institutions where whites are 80-90 percent of the student body. Hence whites are not being discriminated against in college admittance,. You haven't shown any anti white discrimination policy because there are none. You see dumb ass, anti white discrimination doesn't mean whites are 80 percent of a populate of college students but because they cannot get 81 percent that they are being cheated.

Let's cut to the chase: Do you agree that people should be admitted or employed based solely on their qualifications such SAT scores and entrance exam tests or do you think some groups of people need a "boost" or should be admitted even if less qualified?

Ok let's cut to the chase. Do you not understand that since 1776 up until today whites are admitted and employed based upon a boost they get because of their skin color regardless, whether or not they are less qualified?

So, every white person anywhere in the US who got a job today only did so because of their skin color? Is that your position?

That's exactly what he is saying. Additionally, he's saying any black man who has failed only failed because of white people, therefore, according to him, all white people owe all black people "reparations".

Of course, he's never stated a figure of how much each white person owes each black person nor what happens afterward or whether it would bankrupt the nation causing even more misery on all Americans.

No that is what YOU are saying. I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here. it is a human rights violation. I have also stated that Indians get reparations annually, and the Japanese got them for being interred in camps. So then you really have no rightful objection to us asking for reparations. If no one else had ever got them, you could make the argument you are making. The nation is not bankrupting itself paying the Indians every year. So then you really make no sense.

I vote against giving racists one penny much less fabricated accusations and reparations.

It's "Native Americans", racist. They don't get reparations, they get what was agreed to by treaty. Get a fucking clue. Yes, Japanese who were interred received compensation for losses. Not "reparations".

 

[Divine Wind]

So, every white person anywhere in the US who got a job today only did so because of their skin color? Is that your position?

That's exactly what he is saying. Additionally, he's saying any black man who has failed only failed because of white people, therefore, according to him, all white people owe all black people "reparations".

Of course, he's never stated a figure of how much each white person owes each black person nor what happens afterward or whether it would bankrupt the nation causing even more misery on all Americans.

No that is what YOU are saying. I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here. it is a human rights violation. I have also stated that Indians get reparations annually, and the Japanese got them for being interred in camps. So then you really have no rightful objection to us asking for reparations. If no one else had ever got them, you could make the argument you are making. The nation is not bankrupting itself paying the Indians every year. So then you really make no sense.

I believe reparations should be made by the government reinvesting in inner cities that they flooded with drugs and abandoned. Reinvestment would not bankrupt the nation because the creation of good paying jobs would mean people would be paying taxes and buying goods as their income increases. It is necessary.

Are you saying the government flooded the inner cities with drugs?

Yes. A recent 4 night documentary called America's War on Drugs tells it all very clearly. I believe a thread I started about it is still up.

It appears that documentary actually refutes the allegation that "the government" flooded cities with drugs.

New History Channel doc aims to fact-check ‘America’s War on Drugs’
Anthony Lappé, an executive producer behind the History Channel’s new documentary series “America’s War on Drugs,” says that although these theories around federal agencies injecting drugs into the Black community have swirled for years, this new docu-series will reveal that they’re just not true.

 

[MizMolly]

You outta know about AA white woman since white females are the biggest benefactor of the policy So then don't talk about AA only when the conversation is about blacks. You ask a question. I am telling you that blacks aren't socially isolated and that white racism plays a part in the situation blacks face today. You are white and misinformed. Any white female who only thinks AA applies only to blacks is really too damned stupid to try holding a conversation with me on this matter. Murder is illegal and it still happens. So think about that .each time you try that excuse to deny white racism against people of color.

I most certainly CAN talk about AA. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot talk about? And you have the NERVE to ask me to give you money? You cannot be serious. Lol. For WHAT exactly? Why should any white people have to give you any money? You are a free person. Go get a job.

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

You seem to think ALL women are helped by AA, as if NO women work for success

 

[Divine Wind]

You outta know about AA white woman since white females are the biggest benefactor of the policy So then don't talk about AA only when the conversation is about blacks. You ask a question. I am telling you that blacks aren't socially isolated and that white racism plays a part in the situation blacks face today. You are white and misinformed. Any white female who only thinks AA applies only to blacks is really too damned stupid to try holding a conversation with me on this matter. Murder is illegal and it still happens. So think about that .each time you try that excuse to deny white racism against people of color.

I most certainly CAN talk about AA. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot talk about? And you have the NERVE to ask me to give you money? You cannot be serious. Lol. For WHAT exactly? Why should any white people have to give you any money? You are a free person. Go get a job.

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your link is tainted by the fact it's racist.

- scholarship and activism toward racial justice
Indeed, in a recently published book Kimberley Ducey and I lay out the many ways in which the elite-white-male dominance system is central to the United States. It is, in effect, a triple societal helix linking together three major systems of social oppression: systemic white racism, systemic sexism (heterosexism), and systemic classism (capitalism).

 

[IM2]

I most certainly CAN talk about AA. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot talk about? And you have the NERVE to ask me to give you money? You cannot be serious. Lol. For WHAT exactly? Why should any white people have to give you any money? You are a free person. Go get a job.

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

You seem to think ALL women are helped by AA, as if NO women work for success

You seem to think that all blacks are helped by AA and NO black person works for success. Even worse you think all blacks that stand up refusing to ignore existing white racism is only doing do because they have failed or are looking for an excuse to blame whites for their lack of accomplishment, not that white racism does still actually exist and it's a real problem blacks face.

 

[IM2]

I most certainly CAN talk about AA. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot talk about? And you have the NERVE to ask me to give you money? You cannot be serious. Lol. For WHAT exactly? Why should any white people have to give you any money? You are a free person. Go get a job.

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your link is tainted by the fact it's racist.

- scholarship and activism toward racial justice
Indeed, in a recently published book Kimberley Ducey and I lay out the many ways in which the elite-white-male dominance system is central to the United States. It is, in effect, a triple societal helix linking together three major systems of social oppression: systemic white racism, systemic sexism (heterosexism), and systemic classism (capitalism).

Nope, the link is not racist.

 

[IM2]

That's exactly what he is saying. Additionally, he's saying any black man who has failed only failed because of white people, therefore, according to him, all white people owe all black people "reparations".

Of course, he's never stated a figure of how much each white person owes each black person nor what happens afterward or whether it would bankrupt the nation causing even more misery on all Americans.

No that is what YOU are saying. I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here. it is a human rights violation. I have also stated that Indians get reparations annually, and the Japanese got them for being interred in camps. So then you really have no rightful objection to us asking for reparations. If no one else had ever got them, you could make the argument you are making. The nation is not bankrupting itself paying the Indians every year. So then you really make no sense.

I believe reparations should be made by the government reinvesting in inner cities that they flooded with drugs and abandoned. Reinvestment would not bankrupt the nation because the creation of good paying jobs would mean people would be paying taxes and buying goods as their income increases. It is necessary.

Are you saying the government flooded the inner cities with drugs?

Yes. A recent 4 night documentary called America's War on Drugs tells it all very clearly. I believe a thread I started about it is still up.

It appears that documentary actually refutes the allegation that "the government" flooded cities with drugs.

New History Channel doc aims to fact-check ‘America’s War on Drugs’
Anthony Lappé, an executive producer behind the History Channel’s new documentary series “America’s War on Drugs,” says that although these theories around federal agencies injecting drugs into the Black community have swirled for years, this new docu-series will reveal that they’re just not true.

Well since I lived in a city during that time, I can tell you that ot was funny how suddenly all that crack cocaine got into a community that rarely used cocaine on the past.

 

[IM2]

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

Let's look into the facts you've given to support your argument. This is going to be a long post. Loooooonnnnnnnnnggggggg.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

Going in to this one you should immediately note that this was published in the "ideas." section, meaning the editors did not qualify it for use as a real informational article. This is an opinion piece, for reasons I will explain, culminating in the final statement of my review piece.

The first "source" (The Death of Affirmative Action, Part 1 – Brainstorm - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education) is a blogpost opinion piece which does not use facts, figures, citations, or references to make any claims. The only link that source provides is to an article which provides links to two other opinion blogs, and ultimately claims that Asian-Americans are preyed upon by Affirmative Action programs which select lesser-qualified Blacks and Hispanics before Asians
Rating: 2/10 - providing no facts backed by data or sources, using a single also dubious source as sole reference

The second source (Is Sisterhood Conditional?: White Women and the Rollback of Affirmative Action) immediately invalidates itself as used by Time by ignoring relative population. The phrase "the majority of whom were white" gives absolutely NO DETAIL as to the relevant fractions by race, and logically it should be assumed that since African-Americans are ~15% of the population, there will always be a majority of white women as compared to blacks in college. In fact the author's article simply states, using a reference to a study which cannot be found on the open internet, the exact phrase Time used. This is a circular argument which cannot be correlated with data, rendering the entire use of that source null and void
Rating - 1/10 misused data from now defunct sources making a broad claim which ignores population numbers.


The third and final source used by this Time article (Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC) is already a biased source. While logically this instantly discredits claims or 'facts' presented as dubious at best, I'll continue to review. to begin with the NWLC is using almost twenty year old data to frame their argument. Next, and equally as important, they are using data which does not accurately control for hours worked or educational attainment (for example equating all jobs which qualify as "physician" as the same). This source then goes on to NOT talk about racial disparity among females via AA, invalidating it's use as a data source for your argument.
Rating: 3/10 - many confusing source links to old data sets which do not exhibit proper control factors, but good data to show women are advancing in professional careers at a great pace

The Time article therefore is completely useless in proving that white women are, essentially, abusing Affirmative Action.

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

I don't even have to research the sources, the article's target is not compatible with yours. The main target of the [quoted portion of the] article is two points
- Women earn less than men while graduating at higher rates
- White Women in general argue against Affirmative Action

I answered in part why women tend to earn less than men on another thread while breaking down statistics by race and gender, using empirical data from a first party source. Check my history.
White women arguing against AA would imply disturbing things if it fit your narrative. On one hand it means that white women, through all their education in college, both abuse a system and at the same time are denouncing a system which benefits their interests. This is not logically compatible unless we make some rather sexist claims about the intelligence of women, and of white women.

Finally, the last source used by HuffPo is the State of Qatar Government's media mouthpiece, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera frequently self-sources, and likes to source from within "friendly" publication channels such as Vox and, (shocking!) Huffington Post.
Yes, this invalidates Al Jazeera.

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

Ah finally, the big one. The only cited article which attempts to back up your morbid claim. Let's start from the bottom and work our way up.

Source five, going from the bottom up, (http://civilrights.org/equal-opportunity/fact-sheets/fact_sheet_packet.pdf) is no longer accessible. Therefore we cannot refute the validity, which serves fairly well, I think we can both agree that "executives of color" were simply less abundant to be hired because less of them exist. Simple math from population numbers, as I stated before. I remind you that in the absence of data we should adhere to Occam's Razor.

Source three AND four (Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women - NWLC) are the same NWLC article I thrashed in the review of Time's choice of source data. Specifically in these claims, they establish that women in high positions grew greatly, and referring to directly above, we cannot make any claims as to the proportionality of race due to sources no longer existing. They state prior that not only did female employment in federal sectors rise dramatically, it is impossible to make any race-based claims using the source data. Invalidation of a claim that AA is helping white women more.

Source one AND two are both the primary Time article AND it's primary data source reviewed in the Time breakdown above.
The repetition of a false claim only further cements the logical fallacy that a claim has to be correct if repeated often enough, for if enough lemmings choose to run off the cliff, surely the rest of us must follow?

Above all the astute reader would notice that many of the "sources" in all three of these articles round-robin each other, both in history described and in some cases source links. This points to a collusion of interest among all parties, invalidating their use as a fair and unbiased source for information.

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your claim has been debunked using your own data.

I am correct. 100 percent. Never said white women were abusing anything, I said they are the prime benefactor of AA and they are. This would make sense because white women are the majority of women, and women were excluded by past and still ae by current forms of discrimination. Now of the sources round robin it only means they used the same studies. Collusion of interest, Ha!.

 

[Divine Wind]

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your link is tainted by the fact it's racist.

- scholarship and activism toward racial justice
Indeed, in a recently published book Kimberley Ducey and I lay out the many ways in which the elite-white-male dominance system is central to the United States. It is, in effect, a triple societal helix linking together three major systems of social oppression: systemic white racism, systemic sexism (heterosexism), and systemic classism (capitalism).

Nope, the link is not racist.

Disagreed. Of course, in your opinion, only whites can be racist. Amirite?

 

[Divine Wind]

No that is what YOU are saying. I am saying that blacks are owed reparations for EVERYTHING we have endured here. it is a human rights violation. I have also stated that Indians get reparations annually, and the Japanese got them for being interred in camps. So then you really have no rightful objection to us asking for reparations. If no one else had ever got them, you could make the argument you are making. The nation is not bankrupting itself paying the Indians every year. So then you really make no sense.

I believe reparations should be made by the government reinvesting in inner cities that they flooded with drugs and abandoned. Reinvestment would not bankrupt the nation because the creation of good paying jobs would mean people would be paying taxes and buying goods as their income increases. It is necessary.

Are you saying the government flooded the inner cities with drugs?

Yes. A recent 4 night documentary called America's War on Drugs tells it all very clearly. I believe a thread I started about it is still up.

It appears that documentary actually refutes the allegation that "the government" flooded cities with drugs.

New History Channel doc aims to fact-check ‘America’s War on Drugs’
Anthony Lappé, an executive producer behind the History Channel’s new documentary series “America’s War on Drugs,” says that although these theories around federal agencies injecting drugs into the Black community have swirled for years, this new docu-series will reveal that they’re just not true.

Well since I lived in a city during that time, I can tell you that ot was funny how suddenly all that crack cocaine got into a community that rarely used cocaine on the past.

Who is responsible for drug addition? Those selling the drugs or those taking the drugs? Who were selling the drugs on the streets? CIA agents or gang-bangers?

 

[ChrisL]

When you talk about AA then talk about how you white women are the major benefactors of the policy instead of mentioning it only as it pertains to blacks. Because white women like you are were you are today because of AA. If not for that your ass would be buck naked in the kitchen cooking and pushing out babies. Tale your misinformed ass to a Native American and ask them why they are getting reparations you pay for every year. And if you know anyone Japanese, ask them were they here in the 80's and If they were did they get reparations.

Then come back to me with the same dumb shit you posted tonight.

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

You seem to think ALL women are helped by AA, as if NO women work for success

You seem to think that all blacks are helped by AA and NO black person works for success. Even worse you think all blacks that stand up refusing to ignore existing white racism is only doing do because they have failed or are looking for an excuse to blame whites for their lack of accomplishment, not that white racism does still actually exist and it's a real problem blacks face.

Well, why don't you give me some examples of some of the racism that you have to face every day, and don't make things up either.

 

[IM2]

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

Your link is tainted by the fact it's racist.

- scholarship and activism toward racial justice
Indeed, in a recently published book Kimberley Ducey and I lay out the many ways in which the elite-white-male dominance system is central to the United States. It is, in effect, a triple societal helix linking together three major systems of social oppression: systemic white racism, systemic sexism (heterosexism), and systemic classism (capitalism).

Nope, the link is not racist.

Disagreed. Of course, in your opinion, only whites can be racist. Amirite?

No one cares what you disagree with, you have chosen to disagree only because you want to believe a lie.

You are not right. But you also cannot find an American policy or law ever made that denied whites of any rights, protections under the law, the ability to work, freedom to live wherever they wanted to work whatever job they chose to do, to attend any college t hey wanted, and I can go on and on. So when you find all these things blacks have done then we can constructively talk about racism being the same.

 

[IM2]

I don't need AA to get a job. I can get a job on my own merit and my background and skills.

I have tried this argument with him. LOL I get the same retarded replies. I am 61 and worked for everything I have. I have been denied jobs for lack of qualifications. I have been denied jobs because I was female. I moved on, obtained more education and experience to EARN the jobs I got.

The argument is not retarded. The facts support me.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better.

Even in the private sector, the advancements of white women eclipse those of people of color.

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America.

But white women have made a practice of publicly objecting to affirmative action policies. As researcher Jessie McDaniel notes, since the landmark 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which the court ruled that race may be factored into university admissions, “the people suing universities for discrimination in the academic admissions process have been white women: Abigail Fisher; Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger); Jennifer Gratz (Gratz v. Bollinger) and Cheryl Hopwood (Hopwood v. Texas).” Those landmark cases challenged university affirmative action programs in Michigan and Texas, respectively.

And those women are far from alone in believing that a system that’s designed to help them and has helped lots of women like them has actually robbed them of something that’s rightfully theirs — and should be dismantled as a consequence. In fact, they’re more likely than white men in their age group to object.

It’s likely most of them don’t understand how affirmative action helps them, said Jesse Rhodes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who recently analyzed some of the CCES data for Al Jazeera.

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

When it comes to affirmative action, white women occupy a rather peculiar position. White women are the main beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, and also the most likely to sue over them (at least when it comes to education). Today continues the Trouble with White Women series, with a focus on white women and affirmative action.

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action, but data and studies suggest that women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately from these policies. In many ways, affirmative action has moved white women into a structural position in which they share more in common with white men than they do with black or Latina women.

Another study shows that women made greater gains in employment at companies that do business with the federal government, which are therefore subject to federal affirmative-action requirements, than in other companies — with female employment rising 15.2% at federal contractors but only 2.2% elsewhere. And the women working for federal-contractor companies also held higher positions and were paid better. Again, this data often lumps “all women” together (without distinguishing by race), so it’s a bit of a fuzzy issue.

Even in the private sector, white women have moved in and up at numbers that far eclipse those of people of color. After IBM established its own affirmative-action program, the numbers of women in management positions more than tripled in less than 10 years. Data from subsequent years show that the number of executives of color at IBM also grew, but not nearly at the same rate.

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

.So just face the truth white woman. You are helped the most by Affirmative Action.

You seem to think ALL women are helped by AA, as if NO women work for success

You seem to think that all blacks are helped by AA and NO black person works for success. Even worse you think all blacks that stand up refusing to ignore existing white racism is only doing do because they have failed or are looking for an excuse to blame whites for their lack of accomplishment, not that white racism does still actually exist and it's a real problem blacks face.

Well, why don't you give me some examples of some of the racism that you have to face every day, and don't make things up either.

No you just accept the fact that right now systemic racism exists.