You are neglecting to take into account 1) the historical ramifications of racism (and sexism, since you want to throw that in) and 2) the relationship between the -ism and the power structures that support it. If a black man calls a white man "honkey," yes, the term is racist. However, when a white man calls a black man "nigger," not only is that racist, but it calls into mind the entirety of the history of power imbalance between whites and blacks in America. Similarly, if a woman calls a man a "player," that does not have the same ramifications as if a man calls a woman a "slut."
What about the guy who's not hired because he's male?
How often has this occurred compared to the times a woman was not hired because she happened to be female? To me, your question smacks of when someone brings up the epidemic of rape, and someone pipes up, "Well, men are raped, too. What about them?" Yes, male rape happens, but the situations attending it are so compellingly different that that is an issue that needs to be addressed through different means and with different resources.
Historically, to get back to racism, not only have minorities been shut out of the prevailing power structure but they had little if any recourse to demand a redress of their grievances. That is what affirmative action was designed to do: to alleviate the corrosive effects of decades or centuries of disproportionate harm suffered by those who were systematically denied opportunities. I have yet to read about whites, particularly white men, who have been systematically kept from economic, social, educational, and legal opportunities based solely on their race or their sex.
So I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that "All things being equal, we'll let in the black student" is the same thing as "We don't let them darkies in here." The latter is a perpetuation of a systematic denial of services and opportunities, while the former is a correction for past inequities. If you persist in equating the two, then I don't think there is anything I can say or do to make you understand. (Personally, I think this is due to the fact that you admitted earlier that you did not feel that you had ever been the victim of discrimination. I think that if you had a sense of that, you would be more sympathetic.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot
Re: unfair advantages?
Date: 2006-11-02 03:38 pm (UTC)What about the guy who's not hired because he's male?
How often has this occurred compared to the times a woman was not hired because she happened to be female? To me, your question smacks of when someone brings up the epidemic of rape, and someone pipes up, "Well, men are raped, too. What about them?" Yes, male rape happens, but the situations attending it are so compellingly different that that is an issue that needs to be addressed through different means and with different resources.
Historically, to get back to racism, not only have minorities been shut out of the prevailing power structure but they had little if any recourse to demand a redress of their grievances. That is what affirmative action was designed to do: to alleviate the corrosive effects of decades or centuries of disproportionate harm suffered by those who were systematically denied opportunities. I have yet to read about whites, particularly white men, who have been systematically kept from economic, social, educational, and legal opportunities based solely on their race or their sex.
So I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance that "All things being equal, we'll let in the black student" is the same thing as "We don't let them darkies in here." The latter is a perpetuation of a systematic denial of services and opportunities, while the former is a correction for past inequities. If you persist in equating the two, then I don't think there is anything I can say or do to make you understand. (Personally, I think this is due to the fact that you admitted earlier that you did not feel that you had ever been the victim of discrimination. I think that if you had a sense of that, you would be more sympathetic.)