Why White People Don’t Like to Talk About Race

[IM2]

Let's get to the root of racial injustice | Megan Ming Francis

 

[IM2]

I laughed my ass off when I read this post.

Please don't group me in with racist assholes like this clown

Talk about delusional.

Please don't group me in with racist assholes like this clown


You're in an entirely different group of racist assholes.

No I am not. Calling people who speak out about the continuing racism in the white community racists is a tactic used by those racists in order to try shutting such people up. So is calling white people who call out you racists guilt ridden, self hating whites.

You're a racist asshole who is really, really bad at math.

Nah. You're just a butthurt white racist that can't take the truth so you think calling me a racist will make me stop posting about white racism in a race/racism section in a discussion forum.

Unless I post negative stereotypes of my race that validates what you believe. I proved that here:

I was wrong.

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please don't group me in with racist assholes like this clown


You're in an entirely different group of racist assholes.

No I am not. Calling people who speak out about the continuing racism in the white community racists is a tactic used by those racists in order to try shutting such people up. So is calling white people who call out you racists guilt ridden, self hating whites.

You're a racist asshole who is really, really bad at math.

Nah. You're just a butthurt white racist that can't take the truth so you think calling me a racist will make me stop posting about white racism in a race/racism section in a discussion forum.

Unless I post negative stereotypes of my race that validates what you believe. I proved that here:

I was wrong.

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

 

[IM2]

No I am not. Calling people who speak out about the continuing racism in the white community racists is a tactic used by those racists in order to try shutting such people up. So is calling white people who call out you racists guilt ridden, self hating whites.

You're a racist asshole who is really, really bad at math.

Nah. You're just a butthurt white racist that can't take the truth so you think calling me a racist will make me stop posting about white racism in a race/racism section in a discussion forum.

Unless I post negative stereotypes of my race that validates what you believe. I proved that here:

I was wrong.

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

I understand why you are scared to answer the question.

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're a racist asshole who is really, really bad at math.

Nah. You're just a butthurt white racist that can't take the truth so you think calling me a racist will make me stop posting about white racism in a race/racism section in a discussion forum.

Unless I post negative stereotypes of my race that validates what you believe. I proved that here:

I was wrong.

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

I understand why you are scared to answer the question.

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

I'm not scared to point out that blacks commit crime at a higher rate.

 

[IM2]

Nah. You're just a butthurt white racist that can't take the truth so you think calling me a racist will make me stop posting about white racism in a race/racism section in a discussion forum.

Unless I post negative stereotypes of my race that validates what you believe. I proved that here:

I was wrong.

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

I understand why you are scared to answer the question.

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

I'm not scared to point out that blacks commit crime at a higher rate.

But that's a lie. And that lie is not the only issue when it comes to race.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

I understand why you are scared to answer the question.

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

I'm not scared to point out that blacks commit crime at a higher rate.

But that's a lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US?

What's the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

I understand why you are scared to answer the question.

Of the people who actually committed violent crimes, what percentage was white?

I'm not scared to point out that blacks commit crime at a higher rate.

But that's a lie. And that lie is not the only issue when it comes to race.

But that's a lie.

If only you had proof.

Maybe if you could find the violent crime rate per 100,000 blacks in the US and the violent crime rate per 100,000 whites in the US?

But that's math. So I understand your fear.

 

[MizMolly]

In my opinion, most Caucasians prefer not to discuss the topic of "race" because there is no value to doing so.

Since the 1960s, the current majority ethnicity has apologized for past discrimination toward people of color by instituting affirmative action in all areas. In 2008 there occurred the historic presidential election result.

I believe that the current majority ethnicity deserves a shoutout for doing everything possible to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

According to most demographic studies, Caucasians will soon become a minority.

Hopefully, the eventual new majority will continue to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.

It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.

 

[MizMolly]

I find it funny how whites who whine about a government made to benefit them talk about somebody having a fucking chip on their shoulder. If I have a chip, it's justified. Being mad because you believe some dumb ass debunked conspiracy is not.

As usual, only believe only blacks have a right to be mad at everything. How is the government today made to benefit whites more than blacks?

 

[MizMolly]

The propensity of a significant segment of the white population to not want to discuss racial issues is part of a larger trend among them of not wanting to talk openly about other issues involving the differences that exist among our diverse population, and to avoid such discussions like the plague. I see it all the time on USMB.

I favor open round-table discussions of the differences and difficulties that we Americans have with each other. Televised would be nice. Unfortunately, I don't see that these people have anyone capable of representing their views in round-table discussions regarding race, or any other issues involving such matters as sex, sexual orientation, gender, religion, beleaguered souls who wish to seek refuge in our country, among other things. These people are motivated by fear, and their only option is to run away.

You want the conversation with topics restricted to the realm of political correctness instead of addressing a global problem especially as regards blacks, crime and failure.

Wrong. You want the conversation to avoid the long history of global white male crime, terrorism, oppression and fascism.

Perhaps because the discussion should be about problems and solutions today, not the long history that you constantly lecture about. Bringing up the past will not lead to any solutions, since it cannot be changed and people today are not a part of it,

 

[MisterBeale]

USMB is a fine example of this.

Why White People Don’t Like to Talk About Race
March 26, 2015 by Barnabas Piper

Most white people want no part of the conversation about race. We don’t want it with our baristas, our neighbors, our spouses, or anyone really. We don’t quite know what do each February during Black History Month. For most white people that’s Martin Luther King Jr. awareness month with a nod to Harriet Tubman and not much sense of any other aspect of black history or culture. The ongoing tensions surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and so many other incidents are more than most of us know what to do with (if we want anything to do with them at all).

Most of us grew up unaffected by the racial divide, or at least unaware of how it affected us. Now, though, the divide has been brought to us and we’re at a loss. We don’t want that conversation. We’re uncomfortable with it. Our responses tend to fall into two main groups.

Group 1: Don’t want to talk about race

This first group contains the bigots and racists. They don’t want to talk about race (or maybe they do for all the wrong reasons) because they want to be the only race. This bunch deserves a whole lot of ink, most of it not very pleasant, and none of it here. They are despicable products of unfortunate upbringings.

The majority of this group, though, is not outright bigoted. Instead they are outright ignorant and therefore subtly prejudiced. They are unexposed to minority cultures (not just black, but all non-white cultures) and unaware of the complexities, difficulties, and hurts there. Really most of white America is part of, or has been part of, this group. They are the comfortable majority, and thus they determine the status quo. Life is good, so why rock the boat? It’s not that they don’t “care” about the needs of others — you won’t find a more cause-oriented bunch of advocates than young, privileged white people — but those needs never really intersect with their lives at a personal and relational level. And they’re happy to keep it that way because any other way is uncomfortable and intimidating. It’s a passive aggressive approach to racial separation, and one most don’t even realize they’re participating in. Their ignorance is blindness they mistake for bliss.

Group 2: Don’t know how to talk about race

Why White People Don't Like to Talk About Race

Most here are not the blissfully ignorant. You are racists. Blacks here have been called all kinds of racist names and all kinds of overtly racist opinion has been spoken. Blissful ignorance is not why a thread about black names has been created at least 2 times sine I've actively started participating here. The same goes for other things.

Now watch the racism you will see from people who are going to complain. They never complain when a thread by a white person denigrating blacks is posted. Only when a thread about whites is made do they suddenly become colorblind.

Wow. . . 69 pages of this thread? And it is still going on after nearly three weeks?

I'd say your premise is wrong. They sure are chatty.

 

[MizMolly]

then get help IM2

~S~

I'm not the one that needs help. Psychosis is the inability to deal with reality. White racism exists. Recognizing it is dealing with reality.

Yep, sparky IS correct. You definitely DO need help dealing with your insane racism. Thank you.

I'm not the racist, racist.

PLEASE get help, IM2. And I'm not joking, I'm quite serious about this.

Funny how threads by whites can be made about black names and pussies like you stay silent. So when you can do this:

Prove when racism ended and its effects were allayed. Show, with data and peer-reviewed studies supporting your argument, when the effects of the hundreds of years of anti-Black racism from chattel slavery through Old Jim Crow leveled off. Show when the wealth expropriated during that oppression was repaid to those it was expropriated from and through. And remember, after you’ve addressed the end of anti-Black racism you’ll still have to explain when anti-Latinx, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, and anti-Native racism came to an end as well.

I'll stop talking about racism done by whites.

Racism will never end. And racism is not just about whites. You will never admit that, but blacks can be and are racist too, as are other races. There may be more white racists, I cannot change them, but you seem to think all whites are responsible for those who are. There is lots of proof that racism has lessened, or you would not have been able to achieve success, education, jobs, etc. The people who were in bondage are no longer alive to be repaid for their oppression. The government who allowed slavery is no longer alive. You are indeed a racist. You do not just point out racist whites, you ASSume all whites who disagree with you are racists. You refuse to take responsibility or admit that everyone, regardless of race, is responsible for their own lives. If blacks don't get the education, the job, the house, etc, you blame whites. Bullshit, not all whites get all of those things either.

 

[MizMolly]

Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black
In America "whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others," the author writes. "Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no."

I take my text from George Bush, who, in an address to the United Nations on September 23, 1991, said this of the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism: "Zionism . . . is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people. . . . And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history." What happened in the Second World War was that six million Jews were exterminated by people who regarded them as racially inferior and a danger to Aryan purity. What happened after the Second World War was that the survivors of that Holocaust established a Jewish state--that is, a state centered on Jewish history, Jewish values, and Jewish traditions: in short, a Jewocentric state. What President Bush objected to was the logical sleight of hand by which these two actions were declared equivalent because they were both expressions of racial exclusiveness. Ignored, as Bush said, was the historical difference between them--the difference between a program of genocide and the determination of those who escaped it to establish a community in which they would be the makers, not the victims, of the laws.

Only if racism is thought of as something that occurs principally in the mind, a falling-away from proper notions of universal equality, can the desire of a victimized and terrorized people to band together be declared morally identical to the actions of their would-be executioners. Only when the actions of the two groups are detached from the historical conditions of their emergence and given a purely abstract description can they be made interchangeable. Bush was saying to the United Nations, "Look, the Nazis' conviction of racial superiority generated a policy of systematic genocide; the Jews' experience of centuries of persecution in almost every country on earth generated a desire for a homeland of their own. If you manage somehow to convince yourself that these are the same, it is you, not the Zionists, who are morally confused, and the reason you are morally confused is that you have forgotten history."

A Key Distinction

What I want to say, following Bush's reasoning, is that a similar forgetting of history has in recent years allowed some people to argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is reverse racism. The very phrase Reverse Racism contains the argument in exactly the form to which Bush objected: In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others. Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no. One can see why by imagining that it is not 1993 but 1955, and that we are in a town in the South with two more or less distinct communities, one white and one black. No doubt each community would have a ready store of dismissive epithets, ridiculing stories, self-serving folk myths, and expressions of plain hatred, all directed at the other community, and all based in racial hostility. Yet to regard their respective racisms--if that is the word--as equivalent would be bizarre, for the hostility of one group stems not from any wrong done to it but from its wish to protect its ability to deprive citizens of their voting rights, to limit access to educational institutions, to prevent entry into the economy except at the lowest and most menial levels, and to force members of the stigmatized group to ride in the back of the bus. The hostility of the other group is the result of these actions, and whereas hostility and racial anger are unhappy facts wherever they are found, a distinction must surely be made between the ideological hostility of the oppressors and the experience-based hostility of those who have been oppressed.

Not to make that distinction is, adapting George Bush's words, to twist history and forget the terrible plight of African-Americans in the more than 200 years of this country's existence. Moreover, to equate the efforts to remedy that plight with the actions that produced it is to twist history even further. Those efforts, designed to redress the imbalances caused by long-standing discrimination, are called affirmative action; to argue that affirmative action, which gives preferential treatment to disadvantaged minorities as part of a plan to achieve social equality, is no different from the policies that created the disadvantages in the first place is a travesty of reasoning. Reverse Racism is a cogent description of affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to be morally and medically indistinguishable from the therapy we apply to it.

At this point someone will always say, "But two wrongs don't make a right; if it was wrong to treat blacks unfairly, it is wrong to give blacks preference and thereby treat whites unfairly." This objection is just another version of the forgetting and rewriting of history. The work is done by the adverb "unfairly," which suggests two more or less equal parties, one of whom has been unjustly penalized by an incompetent umpire. But blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization. They have been bought, sold, killed, beaten, raped, excluded, exploited, shamed, and scorned for a very long time. The word "unfair" is hardly an adequate description of their experience, and the belated gift of "fairness" in the form of a resolution no longer to discriminate against them legally is hardly an adequate remedy for the deep disadvantages that the prior discrimination has produced. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances.

A Tilted Field

The same insincerity and hollowness of promise infect another formula that is popular with the anti-affirmative-action crowd: the formula of the level playing field. Here the argument usually takes the form of saying "It is undemocratic to give one class of citizens advantages at the expense of other citizens; the truly democratic way is to have a level playing field to which everyone has access and where everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed on the basis of his or her merit." Fine words--but they conceal the facts of the situation as it has been given to us by history: the playing field is already tilted in favor of those by whom and for whom it was constructed in the first place.

The playing field is already tilted, and the resistance to altering it by the mechanisms of affirmative action is in fact a determination to make sure that the present imbalances persist as long as possible.

Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black

Stanley Eugene Fish (born April 19, 1938) is an American literary theorist, legal scholar, author and public intellectual. He is currently the Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City.

Reverse racism would be no racism.

 

[MizMolly]

The propensity of a significant segment of the white population to not want to discuss racial issues is part of a larger trend among them of not wanting to talk openly about other issues involving the differences that exist among our diverse population, and to avoid such discussions like the plague. I see it all the time on USMB.

I favor open round-table discussions of the differences and difficulties that we Americans have with each other. Televised would be nice. Unfortunately, I don't see that these people have anyone capable of representing their views in round-table discussions regarding race, or any other issues involving such matters as sex, sexual orientation, gender, religion, beleaguered souls who wish to seek refuge in our country, among other things. These people are motivated by fear, and their only option is to run away.

White people who don't want to talk about race, are, imo, probably primarily motivated by their personal experiences that the vast majority of such "Discussions" are meant from the beginning to be nothing but lectures aimed at them,

and any attempt by them to defend themselves, or speak up for their interests, or even the very idea that they have interests that are valid to discuss,


will result in them being personally attacked and marginalized.

These people are just plain chicken. I've had good and bad experiences with black people, white people, and others. I'm not so cowardly that I can't discuss them. Let's lay everything out on the table. BTW: I simply have no bone to pick with any particular race, as the people who did bad things to me acted as individuals.

Same here. All these guys want to do is criticize blacks. I'm fine with the criticism as we ain't perfect. But our troubles are not independent from the racism that has been imposed on us and that's what these guys are too cowardly to discuss.

I agree totally. My earliest ancestors made it here around 1849, and they were hated because they were Irish and Catholic. I have nothing to hide, just poor folks off the boat trying to survive in NYC. But the whole history of racism in the colonies and in the U.S. must be considered as it cannot be ignored. Let us discuss it openly and without fear.

I have no idea as to what privileges may have benefited me in my own individual life, but I remember crossing the border at San Ysidro on foot to visit Tijuana for the day. When I walked back into the United States, no one asked me anything, just waved me through. I don't think that the browner-skinned, black-haired folks behind me were treated the same way.

I don't think that is racism. It is common knowledge that if you live in Mexico, you are virtually going to be browner skinned.

 

[katsteve2012]

In my opinion, most Caucasians prefer not to discuss the topic of "race" because there is no value to doing so.

Since the 1960s, the current majority ethnicity has apologized for past discrimination toward people of color by instituting affirmative action in all areas. In 2008 there occurred the historic presidential election result.

I believe that the current majority ethnicity deserves a shoutout for doing everything possible to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

According to most demographic studies, Caucasians will soon become a minority.

Hopefully, the eventual new majority will continue to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.

It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.

Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.

In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.

 

[IM2]

USMB is a fine example of this.

Why White People Don’t Like to Talk About Race
March 26, 2015 by Barnabas Piper

Most white people want no part of the conversation about race. We don’t want it with our baristas, our neighbors, our spouses, or anyone really. We don’t quite know what do each February during Black History Month. For most white people that’s Martin Luther King Jr. awareness month with a nod to Harriet Tubman and not much sense of any other aspect of black history or culture. The ongoing tensions surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and so many other incidents are more than most of us know what to do with (if we want anything to do with them at all).

Most of us grew up unaffected by the racial divide, or at least unaware of how it affected us. Now, though, the divide has been brought to us and we’re at a loss. We don’t want that conversation. We’re uncomfortable with it. Our responses tend to fall into two main groups.

Group 1: Don’t want to talk about race

This first group contains the bigots and racists. They don’t want to talk about race (or maybe they do for all the wrong reasons) because they want to be the only race. This bunch deserves a whole lot of ink, most of it not very pleasant, and none of it here. They are despicable products of unfortunate upbringings.

The majority of this group, though, is not outright bigoted. Instead they are outright ignorant and therefore subtly prejudiced. They are unexposed to minority cultures (not just black, but all non-white cultures) and unaware of the complexities, difficulties, and hurts there. Really most of white America is part of, or has been part of, this group. They are the comfortable majority, and thus they determine the status quo. Life is good, so why rock the boat? It’s not that they don’t “care” about the needs of others — you won’t find a more cause-oriented bunch of advocates than young, privileged white people — but those needs never really intersect with their lives at a personal and relational level. And they’re happy to keep it that way because any other way is uncomfortable and intimidating. It’s a passive aggressive approach to racial separation, and one most don’t even realize they’re participating in. Their ignorance is blindness they mistake for bliss.

Group 2: Don’t know how to talk about race

Why White People Don't Like to Talk About Race

Most here are not the blissfully ignorant. You are racists. Blacks here have been called all kinds of racist names and all kinds of overtly racist opinion has been spoken. Blissful ignorance is not why a thread about black names has been created at least 2 times sine I've actively started participating here. The same goes for other things.

Now watch the racism you will see from people who are going to complain. They never complain when a thread by a white person denigrating blacks is posted. Only when a thread about whites is made do they suddenly become colorblind.

Wow. . . 69 pages of this thread? And it is still going on after nearly three weeks?

I'd say your premise is wrong. They sure are chatty.

Are these whites talking about race or are they calling blacks who speaking about white racism racists, or complaining about AA while refusing to discuss why it is implemented and why it still needs to stay? Are they talking about black on black crime while not noticing the problem of white crime? These guys aren't talking about race MB. They're complaining because whites can't exclude people of other races. Read the OP. This is not a discussion, it what every thread about race that's started by a black person here turns to, that is a laboratory full of white fragility.

 

[Correll]

In my opinion, most Caucasians prefer not to discuss the topic of "race" because there is no value to doing so.

Since the 1960s, the current majority ethnicity has apologized for past discrimination toward people of color by instituting affirmative action in all areas. In 2008 there occurred the historic presidential election result.

I believe that the current majority ethnicity deserves a shoutout for doing everything possible to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

According to most demographic studies, Caucasians will soon become a minority.

Hopefully, the eventual new majority will continue to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.

It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.

Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.

In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.

But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.


And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.

 

[katsteve2012]

In my opinion, most Caucasians prefer not to discuss the topic of "race" because there is no value to doing so.

Since the 1960s, the current majority ethnicity has apologized for past discrimination toward people of color by instituting affirmative action in all areas. In 2008 there occurred the historic presidential election result.

I believe that the current majority ethnicity deserves a shoutout for doing everything possible to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

According to most demographic studies, Caucasians will soon become a minority.

Hopefully, the eventual new majority will continue to ensure "justice and liberty for all."

And that's the problem, your opinion. Affirmative action has benefitted white families because of the increased earning power of white women and the majority of whites did not vote for Obama in 2008. Seems that whites don't seriously want to talk about race. People like you want a pat on the back for passing laws to give us what we were supposed to have on 7-4-1776, in the 1960's, 190 years after all men were created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.

It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA.

Women had to fight for equal opportunity and pay in the workforce because of belief bigoted, misogynistic hiring managers that they could not effectively compete in the workforce at the managerial level in numerous professions.

In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list and is considered a part of Affirmative action, and was intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population. It's not an "advantage", it is legislation that ELIMINATED an unfair advantage by including minorities and females.

But going a step further and deciding to make up for past discrimination by hiring less qualified women TODAY, is an ADVANTAGE to women, TODAY.


And that is obviously what is and has been going on, for a long time, and your denial is not credible.

I'm not denying anything. As usual you are ASSuming.

Like it or not, the probability of many BETTER qualified women is more likely.

There are more of them.

 

[IM2]

"It isn't Affirmative Action when a women decided she needed or wanted to work outside of the household. If a women isn't qualified she will not hold a position long at a job. Women have fought for their rightful place in the workforce, equal pay for equal skills, etc. You talk of laws that should have been given to blacks long before they were, I agree, but women were also denied many things in the past. Giving them the same rights as men is not being given an advantage, such as AA."

Affirmative Action is exactly what it is. If not for the civil rights movement, women would not have been included in the policy. Everything said in this paragraph applies to blacks. The last line especially. Giving blacks the same rights as whites is not being given an advantage. You have been race pimped by other whites to believe that AA is an advantage given only to blacks. It's not and never has been.