Hacker News Reader

Comment by frandroid | Hacker News Reader

In critical race theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory), the main tenet is that racism is the combination of discrimination and power. Everyone can do negative discrimination versus anyone based on race, but it becomes racism when the party that does the discrimination has power over the party being discriminated again. If you apply this schema to patriarchy, one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism".

I agree with you that "special treatment" does not benefit anybody, but there is so much misogyny (aka "special treatment") that counter-treatment is not just desirable, but necessary.

View on HN

>one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism".

Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism.

That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.

No - the actor in this scenario, the one with power - is not the male or female engineer, but rather the employer or conference coordinator. They may very well be male, but they are giving the female engineer, who as a class have less power then the class of male engineers a leg up in getting an opportunity to speak.

The male engineers experiencing what you call reverse discrimination are still in a position of power as a class.

Giving someone an opportunity based on a protected class, which denies that same opportunity to someone else of that protected class, is discrimination. It is treating someone negatively based on their protected class. It's the textbook definition of discrimination.

Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.

The whole 'in power' is just a means to justify racism/sexism/etc. Anyone who defends it is defending racism/sexism/etc.

I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power".

The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.

If we actually do break down barriers and correct our gender biases as a society, what is to stop us from continuing this "special treatment" at the expense of men? When do we say "mission accomplished"?

Case in point: "Black History Month" wasn't supposed to be permanent. We still celebrate it though, as if black history were distinctly different from American history. It started off with good intentions, but it continues to this day as an unnecessarily divisive holiday. How much "black history" is ignored 11 months out of the year just so we can celebrate it in February (the shortest month of the year)?

Sexual discrimination is sexual discrimination, regardless of context.

Well, we can be sure folks will bring it up again. Nobody is ignoring this issue, especially on internet comment sites. But for now, the status quo is unacceptable and special treatment is called for. Doing nothing is tantamount to acceptance of the unfair situation.

Here's an idea: lets reverse things for now. You lose your job, along with most other men, and women are put in their place. That's millions of people changing jobs. How long before men start complaining? How long before 'special treatment' begins to look good to them?

Let's make it more fair: instead of men and women changing jobs, ostensibly causing a great deal of chaos, let's go with a parallel universe where your conditions are already in place.

Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care.

What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently.

But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.

The standard reply is, those industries are among the lowest-paid. And men are among the highest-offenders. So its a straw man.

How about, we use instead any of the other 100 industries where men already hold the best-paid positions? We'll just swap 30 or 40 of them, so as not to cause as much pain to all those poor men.

Everything is a straw man for you.

Muslims are the highest offenders for terrorism - should we treat them different?

How about this - it is very radical and might be hard for someone like you to handle.....

How about we allow companies to hire people by merit.

I apologise if it is a horrible thing to hear for authoritarian, "diversity officer" supporting, communists.

But hiring is absolutely not done on merit. Its done on 'cultural fit' and that means, hire more guys like us. Women are widely discriminated against, merit notwithstanding. There is a fundamental problem in our industry, and denying it or throwing anecdotes around isn't helping us move forward.

And if 'straw man' offends, then I suggest learning to make other kinds of arguments. I call em as I see em.

We've built our straw effigies from the same bale, mine just happens to burn more cleanly.

What does that even mean?

At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society. All the moaning about how no solution is pure enough in some ivory tower way, is beside the point.

>At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society.

Everything isn't so black-and-white. I agree that "women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce". I also agree that we, as a society, are responsible for inciting positive change in this regard.

Regardless, I simply cannot endorse the implementation of sexually discriminatory business practices as a "solution" to the problem.

The root of the problem isn't with hiring managers. The root is that in the fields in which women are most absent, men make up the vast majority of APPLICANTS. Unless we can level the playing field in education, as well as in family structure, we won't see any change in these industries.

If 15% of men enroll in STEM fields in college, while <1% of women do, then the disparity being reflected in the STEM workforce is inevitable.

Woman aren't as interested in STEM as men are, and we need to determine if:

1) This is the result of sexism.

2a) If so, where can we incite change to boost the likelihood that women will pursue a career in STEM.

2b) If not, why do we see the disparity that we do, and is it actually ethical to try to "fix" it.

I have no problem with the ends here, just the means. If you want to fight against sexual discrimination, you cannot participate in or encourage it. How's that for black-and-white?

It means your hypothetical substitution situation is no different from mine, I just happen to have picked a substitution based on an existing situation that meets the criteria you chose. The fact that it disagrees with your worldview does not mean you can discount it outright.

Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.

Anyone who argues that Black History Month should be abolished is labeled as a sexist, even if they're black. You think this issue won't suffer the same problem?

The idea of using sexual discrimination to fight sexual discrimination is absurd. Women being treated differently than men is the root of the problem, not the solution.

Thanks, said it better than I could. People never consider power when talking about race or gender, only about actions or behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com