Discrimination towards majorities

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In a different thread Jazzrat kindly pointed out personal tendencies to belittle populations when I brought up the matter of sexism towards men: http://www.revleft.com/vb/gender-equality-equal-t95873/index.html?p=1315429#post1315429

This has been a common objection made to different posts on RevLeft. Whenever a user even mentions that prospect of discrimination towards a "majority," it is dismissed by a group of sexists/homosexists/Caucasian bashers. This is clearly not in line with what I feel is RevLeft's message. Some discussion is in order if it is appropriate to think that only minorities can be discriminated against, and whether it's appropriate to laugh at discrimination towards men (as an example).

Jazzrat is clearly acting on par with sexists who market generalizations about women. If a user was to enter that same thread and laugh about discrimination towards women, there would be a different theme of discussion. Unfortunately, a rather large chunk of the user base is willing to overlook such remarks in order to maintain a blame game.

[Wanted Man]

Of course we oppose discrimination against any group. But the difference is that there is institutional discrimination against women, non-white minorities, gay people, etc. It's possible for one woman to treat one man like shit, because she's sexist against men. But the man doesn't get disadvantaged in the labour market because he's a man, for example. And when he impregnates a woman, it's the woman who is put under pressure to keep the baby, and if that fails, maybe she'll still be faced with a picket of religious nuts when she goes to have an abortion, calling her a whore, etc.


a group of sexists/homosexists/Caucasian bashers.

This is self-evidently ridiculous.

[Jazzratt]

Yep that's me. I'm sexist against men and racist against crackers. :rolleyes: Pull your head out of your arse for fifteen seconds, please. When it becomes demonstrably more difficult to be a straight white man than a homosexual woman of colour I'll give a toss what you think, until then I'm going to laugh uproariously at you.

EDIT: Just noticed your spurious negative rep for my "sexism", it would be funnier if it wasn't so pathetic.

[KurtFF8]

I will point out one thing: in the US legal system, in cases of child custody: it's much harder for men to win battles and get custody of their kids in cases where parents split.

That may be fairly minor (and have many other issues that go with it) but it could be one minor example of how being a man can provide some institutional disadvantage.

But for the most part, it's pretty clear that males have significant advantages over females institutionally and socially. Although discrimination or "men bashing" isn't really a good answer in my opinion.

[Pawn Power]

In a different thread Jazzrat kindly pointed out personal tendencies to belittle populations when I brought up the matter of sexism towards men: http://www.revleft.com/vb/gender-equality-equal-t95873/index.html?p=1315429#post1315429




Men aren't a majority. Majority populations are discriminated against all the time. Women is one example, another would be majority black communities in the US south where whites run law enforcement and businesses.

The issues isn't always who is in the majority or minority but who has power and who has privilege.

[Guerrilla22]

This isn't the "reverse discrimination" that conservatives seem to be so worried about is it?

[Vanguard1917]

Every 'community' (gay, black, muslim, female, disabled, etc.), usually led by some 'community leader' sponsored by the government, seems to want to claim discrimination for themselves and competes for the title of most-discriminated-against. The status of helpless victim has become extremely valuable. It seems that nowadays the way to legitimise and further your interests is to emphasise your victimhood, so that you can be considered more victimised than others, preferably as the top victim, in order to receive recognition and support from the political and cultural elite. That's the framework in which politics, especially the politics of multiculturalism, takes place today.

That's why all sorts of reactionaries also use that framework, which has already been given official sanction and legitimacy, to justify their 'concerns'. Hence, for example, far-right groups like the BNP talk about racial discrimination against 'British natives', the need to celebrate English culture and identity against attacks, and so on.

As an aside, it's probably best that everyone spend less time going on about how they're feeble little victims, and more time growing some (metaphorical) balls and using their heads. If history has taught us anything, it's that *****ing solves nothing.

[Jazzratt]

As an aside, it's probably best that everyone spend less time going on about how they're feeble little victims, and more time growing some (metaphorical) balls and using their heads. If history has taught us anything, it's that *****ing solves nothing.

It takes a fuck of a lot more balls to stand up against discrimination (what you dismiss as "*****ing") than to feebly accept it and take it on the chin, which seems to be what you suggest.

[Vanguard1917]

It takes a fuck of a lot more balls to stand up against discrimination (what you dismiss as "*****ing")

I'd say that fighting discrimination is precisely what i wouldn't call *****ing.

Emphasising your victimhood tends to be less about 'standing up against discrimination' and more about demanding recognition for your victim status. Contemporary culture and victim politics dictate that the way to receive greater recognition for your 'community' (usually from the state and the media) is to play up and advertise its vulnerability and victimhood. Contrast this with radical political movements of the past, which emphasised the stregnth and agency of their respective constituencies.

[PRC-UTE]

I'd say that fighting discrimination is precisely what i wouldn't call *****ing.

Emphasising your victimhood tends to be less about 'standing up against discrimination' and more about demanding recognition for your victim status. Contemporary culture and victim politics dictate that the way to receive greater recognition for your 'community' (usually from the state and the media) is to play up and advertise its vulnerability and victimhood. Contrast this with radical political movements of the past, which emphasised the stregnth and agency of their respective constituencies.

I don't agree completely, however I think you've got a point- the victim/identity politics often encourages a retreat from the universal goals of liberation and towards the useless cul de sac's of lobbying the state for various interest groups.

[Black Dagger]

I will point out one thing: in the US legal system, in cases of child custody: it's much harder for men to win battles and get custody of their kids in cases where parents split.

If this is true i susppect like most suppposed 'sexism' against men this is really just a product of patriarchy, and ultimately sexism against women.

In a society which cultivates women as 'mothers' and where 'motherhood' is held in almost religious esteem... the expectation is that women are 'better' at child-rearing - as this is their 'natural' role (it also happens to be a role that places women in an inherently subordinate and dependent position to men). In light of that, the sort of finding you have mentioned above seems as no suprise. This is really a type of 'positive discrimination' against women, like stereotyping all asian people as being 'hard workers' or 'smart and good at math'. It reinforces prejudices, values and the patriarchal place of women.

[KurtFF8]

If this is true i susppect like most suppposed 'sexism' against men this is really just a product of patriarchy, and ultimately sexism against women.

In a society which cultivates women as 'mothers' and where 'motherhood' is held in almost religious esteem... the expectation is that women are 'better' at child-rearing - as this is their 'natural' role (it also happens to be a role that places women in an inherently subordinate and dependent position to men). In light of that, the sort of finding you have mentioned above seems as no suprise. This is really a type of 'positive discrimination' against women, like stereotyping all asian people as being 'hard workers' or 'smart and good at math'. It reinforces prejudices, values and the patriarchal place of women.

Oh, no question. I was just pointing out a case where the "dominate" or "oppressor" group (in terms of social groups of course, because obviously not all men oppress all women in America) is at a disadvantage in certain cases because of the social structure.

I would imagine, without knowing for sure, that it was once much harder for women to get custody over their children in America when the patriarchy was much more explicit, especially in terms of the legal system.

But you're right, this certainly comes from that social relationship which is still that of oppressor/oppressed.