The "Discrimination goes both ways" argument

[Red Rabbit]

Just wondering what my fellow Revlefters' opinions are on the "discrimination goes both ways" argument. Tell me, how would you respond to the following:

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"

"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"

"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"

"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"

"Why is it ok if an atheist harasses a Christian for believing in God, but it's not ok for a Christian to try and convert an atheist?"

?

I've heard all of these questions asked before, but I was unsure of how to respond to a few of them had I been the one asked. Looking forward to seeing everyone's opinions. :)

[Igor]

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"

Because every other month is a white history month.


"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"


Because every other group is primarily for straight people.


"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"


They shouldn't be.


"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"


Well a joking insult from the targeted group can't really be compared to the insult coming from the people who originally used it to the point where it became bad.


"Why is it ok if an atheist harasses a Christian for believing in God, but it's not ok for a Christian to try and convert an atheist?"


It's not ok for atheists to harass Christians.

there you go it's that easy

[wunks]

Just wondering what my fellow Revlefters' opinions are on the "discrimination goes both ways" argument. Tell me, how would you respond to the following:

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"because whites have not been marginalized in American society.


"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"because LGBT only groups are support groups, whereas there is no reason for a straight only group other than to discriminate.


"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"sure.


"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"that all depends on the context it's being used in.

[Valdyr]

You should also point out to them that these forms of oppression are structural, not just or even primarily a matter of an individual's psychology

[Raúl Duke]

While in certain instances there can be the argument of "racism against caucasians;" for example, perhaps in Japan or China.

In the USA (and most of the west), white heterosexual males cannot be realistically discriminated against; much less in the structural oppression sense. So the whole "discrimination goes both ways" is pretty much non-sense particularly in the ways that count. White heterosexual males have it pretty good in the US compared to the rest, if you put some thought to it. Black males are more likely to get arrested and probably less likely to get a job. Males are less likely to be sexually harrassed in work, etc and will not be paid less then the other gender. Heterosexuals do not have to worry about gay intolerance and being deprived certain rights (i.e. like the right to be married). That's only a few cursory example, there are probably a few others.

However...men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses I guess.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"Ideally there shouldn't be either, and "official History" would organically incorporate all experiences. But in the real world there are class divisions (history is told through the eyes of the ruling class) and in addition there is systematic oppression and marginalization of black people in the US.

One side effect of the gains of the civil rights movement was a re-evaluation of how US history is taught and a push to "include" versions of history that don't just include rich white rulers, but talk about slaves, minority ethnicity, the role of women in history, and migrants and poor people. I have criticisms with this and it's ostensibly designed to "bring oppressed groups into the national narrative" rather than highlight struggle or how people won rights. But none the less, in a world where poor kids and black kids are told they aren't really important, at least having some of these things can help give working class kids a sense of self-worth and that people like them matter etc.


"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"Because of homophobia and the desire for people to get together without bigots telling them they are evil. Straight people don't have to worry if their sexuality might cost them in general society; they don't have to get together and discuss how to deal with issues like being denied an apartment or job because they are straight etc.


"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"No argument there, and it shouldn't be just because "women get to".


"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"Go ahead, you won't have any friends and you will needlessly alienate people around you. For black people it's either a common term or a kind of bitting reminder of common oppression. Black people use it as a term of racial solidarity. So a white person can still use this word, but it's still a racist term - therefore if white people want to show they are serious about not being racist: don't use the term yourself and don't complain that black people use the term.

I don't believe in "taking back" oppressive language. People in my high school still got called "queer" and it still hurt even if academics believe the word has been "taken back". The "N" word became widely used due to a kind of youthful semi-class-related dissatisfaction from the loss of gains from the civil rights movement. The Black Middle class has always had a tendency to blame poor blacks for "putting back the race" just as white seperate poor whites into a "white trash" category and so I think that's initially where people began to "take the word back". "African-American" middle class people get to go to college and advance in white society, the poor are stuck in the ghetto with less and less possibility for social mobility, so "nigger" became a term to kind of throw in people's faces.

Why can't white people use it? Because it is a racist term even while black people use it together. In common usage it is like saying calling your friend a "Motherfucker" in a playful way or lots of other terms that are kind of friendly but also have a biting edge. In the UK, friends call each-other "****s" and it's both familiar but with a edge to it.

I don't think the term is that useful in the "take-back" sense, but it's pretty common and as a white-looking guy, I don't think the best battle for me to choose is one that would have me lecturing black people what to say.

I don't think white people should use this word either, it's overfamiliar to call some random young black person the "n-word" (and paternalistic like, "hey, I'm down with black people, look I use 'their word'")


"Why is it ok if an atheist harasses a Christian for believing in God, but it's not ok for a Christian to try and convert an atheist?"I would argue that it is equally annoying and pointless.


Hope it helped!

[The Young Pioneer]

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"

"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"

"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"

"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"

"Why is it ok if an atheist harasses a Christian for believing in God, but it's not ok for a Christian to try and convert an atheist?"

1. It's called all of history ever 'cept some small hype in February.
2. Because we're cooler than you.
3. So give me some swim trunks and get on with your bad self in that sarong.
4. There's a time and a place, whitey.
5. Because God has a plan for atheist world domination, dintcha know?

[¿Que?]

"If theres a black history month, why can't there be a white history month?"
Because what is usually presented as an acultural, racially and ethnically neutral "objective" history is really history which is largely informed and shaped by "white" values and assumptions. Take thanksgiving, for example. We're supposed to celebrate how the native americans helped a bunch of pilgrims survive the winter. What really happened was genocide, I shouldn't have to tell you.

"Why is it ok for there to be LBGT-only group, but not a straight-only group?"
Prove to me that such a group exists. Most LBGT groups and other cultural groups for Latinos, Blacks, Asians etc allow anyone interested to join. The point is that those groups are intended to bring forward certain issues, issues germane to a particular community. You don't have to be a certain orientation or ethnicity or race to be a part of that community, but you certainly do have to respect their interests and concerns.


"If women can wear jeans, then men shouldn't be ostracized for wearing dresses"
Of course not. But is it really feminists and leftists ostracizing men for wearing dresses, or is it conservative, reactionaries enforcing gender roles through fear and intimidation?


"Since black people do it all the time, white people should be allowed to say the n word"The issue isn't nearly as simple as the question assumes. The "n" word is a complicated and troubled construct for the black community, and somewhat divisive I might add. Plenty of black people refuse to use the word and see it as discriminatory or oppressive in any context. There is also the issue of a lot of thug type white and Latinos who repeatedly use the word among black people. The point here is to look tough, as if to say, look I'm saying it, what are you going to do about it. Thus, the person earns some street cred and has probably been in a lot of confrontations and fights to reach that level of using the word comfortably. So the issue is not so cut and dry.


"Why is it ok if an atheist harasses a Christian for believing in God, but it's not ok for a Christian to try and convert an atheist?"

?
Because atheists are right? No seriously, it's not. Militant atheists, who have not been politicized beyond the issue of religion are pretty useless in my opinion. If you are anti-capitalist, I don't care if you're muslim, jewish, christian hindu or whatever, I will most likely agree with more of what you say than a capitalist atheist.