White Men are the Most Discriminated Against Demographic

[BoodeBeep]

My boyfriend has just said this to me. His reasons were women and ethnic minorities get schemes/help/AWS etc. I asked why exactly he thinks they have them, who they were trying to equal women up to etc. He said we should have a meritocracy and I agreed but explained we haven't ever ever had that and not all men are there on merit. I asked if he thought the reason there wasn't 50/50 represention was because women just weren't up to it and he said of course not but what other explanation is there?

I left it because there is just no getting through the complete arrogant certainty that he is right despite having done zero reading around the subject, having zero experience of being a woman/ethnic minority and seeing and hearing the experiences me and many other women have.

It's so frustrating. He's generally great but blind on this issue and obviously unwilling to think about it in any depth beyond how it may affect him should he fall victim to the discrimination of an all women shortlist.

Do men ever really get it?

Do you think that toymakers, dating back to original artisans/individual craftsme...sorry craftspeople figured out that girls liked playing with dolls and boys with toy cars etc, and therefore made more of them.

Or was it all another patriarchal conspiracy?

Again, no one said patriarchal conspiracy!

I would say that the overriding aim of toy manufacturers is to make money and if that means manipulating and exaggerating currently held beliefs then that is what they will do.

Here is a money equation for you:
Make sure that boys and girls' clothes, bicycles, lego sets are extremely gendered + captalize on boys' socialized desire to not be seen as "girly" = parents buying two sets of everything for their DC

'It's just frustrating he won't listen when I tell him it exists and how.'

Sorry, but if he won't listen to you then, at a fundamental level he doesn't respect you.

I made excuses for my partner/ then husband, for his inability to understand perspectives other than his own, for his inability to take on board my point of view. Because I loved him, he loved me and we had fun together. But you know, long term, it's pretty fucking miserable being in a relationship like that. Life ain't all ha ha hee hee, as they say. And a guy like that, isn't there for you when the shit hits the fan and you go through tough times and you need to have each others back. How can he be? He can't understand your point of view and he won't listen.

Well let's put our best effort into that elimination process and see what happens. It will be interesting to find out.

Now there's a thought!

"I would say that the overriding aim of toy manufacturers is to make money and if that means manipulating and exaggerating currently held beliefs then that is what they will do."

Where did those beliefs come from, was my point

Where did those beliefs come from, was my point

Yes I see your point is that "stereotypes exist for a reason. There is a kernel of truth behind them".

To which there are 2 replies:

1. Erroneous stereotypes have existed all through out history: the lazy black man, the indolent working classes, the dishonest Indian, . They have come out of the circumstances of the time when the dominant class has decided the fate and the perceptions of the subordinate classes. Just because stereotypes exist doesn't mean they're correct.

Take the oft held idea that women talk more than men. They don't. Socio-linguists know this. But that doesn't stop a good old comic trope of the chatterbox wife and the taciturn husband.

1. So what if there is truth behind them?

Do girls like dolls more than boys? Probably. Does that mean the science kits and adventure-inspiring slogans should be on the boys' side? Absolutely not. Are boys more violent? Perhaps. That doesn't mean there isn't a whole swathe of boys who would rather sit down and read a book.

There is so much overlap, on every single marker. Behavioural and intellectual differences are nowhere near as starkly binary as biological sex.

I lived in Scandinavia for many years. There is far, far less gendered shit there and it permeates through society.

If you sent a little girl to kindergarten in fluffy dresses and shoes she couldnt play in the staff would have a word with you. There’s no aisle of girls toys and boys toys. It’s by function - vehicles will have the barbie car and the diggers in, books all together, craft stuff all together.

No society is perfect but I often miss it. I was never cat called, grabbed, groped or spoken down to there. Men treat you like a fellow human. Your car mechanic is as likely to be a young woman as a young man. It’s worlds ahead.

Having read a bit more of this thread I am surprised how many people are supporting a 'meritocracy'. This idea of a meritocracy is one that, it seems to me, is promoted by privileged people to enable them to think that they got where they were on their merit, rather than their privilege.

I come from a working class background and my skin crawls where I hear talk of a meritocracy used to justify why people from my background haven't made it to the top. Apparently its because they are all a bit thick.

We need schemes to advantage people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I come from a working class background and my skin crawls where I hear talk of a meritocracy used to justify why people from my background haven't made it to the top. Apparently its because they are all a bit thick.

whiteonred absolutely. It bombazzles me that people actually think we currently live in a meritocracy. If we do why is Eton full of public schoolboys? Why is social mobility so low?

The rationales that people make in their minds to justify the problem perpetuates the problem.

@bowlofbabelfish "Your car mechanic is as likely to be a young woman as a young man. It’s worlds ahead."

Actually the reason Scandinavia got mentioned is because the gender gap in certain professions got bigger, as did personality differences.

Maybe car mechanics is the lone exception that bucks the trend

@fmsfms That was a reference to the implication that little boys telling little girls "lego is for boys" is somehow responsible for gender gaps in STEM

It's one part of a whole structural stereotyping of children's behaviours and activities and toys based on sex. Give over with the wilful misreading.

An entire supermarket chain's policy isn't an anecdote.

@fmsfms, re women in computing. The ENIAC Six were the first programmers of a digital computer and they were all women. A brief history of how women were forced out of computing. And yes, video games marketed at boys was part of how computers were masculinised.

haXXor that second article is making me seethe because it fits in exactly with my memory of it when the first video games came out. So frustrating..

I'll ask again, are you ok with sacrificing/denying opportunities to the poorest members of that group because the people of the top have (in your opinion) more privilege and opportunity than other groups?

Yes, absolutely.
The only way we have found to address class inequalities in a hierarchical society is to disadvantage some of the ruling class members so that the subordinated classes may have an opportunity.

Whenever there are limited resources there will be some in every class who do not share the benefits of that class. Legacy education and employment is an unfair way of distributing advantage. It not only disadvantages the subordinated classes members but also disadvantages those within the ruling class who are denied opportunity.

------

Toys are tools that adults teach children how to use to groom them and prepare them to take their place in society in accordance with their sex class and social class. Non conforming children are punished. The only way to maintain such an absurd system is constant reinforcement by advertising, entertainment, and training.

So @boodebeep I think fms has given you a great illustration on this thread that men don't get it.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe becoming a political lesbian

Your boyfriend is actually right. They are the only group you can legally discriminate against in every case. The reason why we have positive discrimination is because women are not up to it but instead if admitting this and addressing the problems in socialisation and education that cause this it is easier to cover it up by appointing some female board members. Positive discrimination is by its very nature unequal and by its desception disincentivises employers, educators, sociologists and legislators from identifying and dealing with the underlying issues.

@thebewilderness but would it it be better to you know educate the poor kids properly? We should be aiming to raise standards across the board instead of letting some of the sub par candidates in just to give them a chance dragging the overall standard down for their benefit.

Positive discrimination is illegal. Are you perhaps talking about positive action?

What are the underlying issues you talk of?

instead of letting some of the sub par candidates in just to give them a chance dragging the overall standard down for their benefit.

can you give an example of where this has happened?

"women are not up to it".

What, all of them, and what is "it"?

Why do you assume they are "sub-par?
Do you understand what par means?
People have biases that effect their decisions. One of them is that they choose people most like themselves. That means the mediocre white males choose mediocre white males. History confirms this fact.

The reason why we have positive discrimination is because women are not up to it but instead if admitting this and addressing the problems in socialisation and education that cause this it is easier to cover it up by appointing some female board members.

The facts do not bear out this assertion.
The most egregious positive discrimination in society is the bit where men in authority do not harass men the way the do women in education and employment.

What a pile of shit, driver! I'm sorry, but men set themselves up as these great leaders when they have ruined this planet - they have wreaked devastation on women, children, animals...starting wars, abusing the vulnerable, tax avoidance, stealing..! If you are going to set yourself up as better than anyone or anything to gain the best positions, then you better fucking well get it right!!! But men haven't, have they? Corruption, abuse and evildoing in every organization on earth...thanks to men!

@racecardriver: The reason why we have positive discrimination is because women are not up to it but instead if admitting this and addressing the problems in socialisation and education that cause this it is easier to cover it up by appointing some female board members.

It's not that women are inherently "not up to it", it's that we are deterred at every level from birth from certain pursuits and denied the chance to prove that we are up to it, which I suspect is the "problems in socialisation and education" that you mention.

Positive action is far from perfect as a fix, but it helps, because visible female role models are part of the education and socialisation that you said need fixing. Upthread, PP's talked about how women were driven out of computing. I have learned more about women in STEM and the humanities from Google Doodles than I did in my history, STEM, or humanities classes at school. But we learned about men like Thomas Telford and I K Brunel. This is part of the problem, and Google's positive action of foregrounding women's achievements in Doodles is helping that. Do you think Google are wrong?

All-women shortlists do not result in sub-par MPs and in fact AWS MPs outperform other MPs in some respects. From the full article (obtained via work library): "We examine five [Parliamentary] activities: writing questions, speaking in debates, attending votes, rebelling against the party and responding to constituents. [...] In sum, across all five measures of parliamentary activity, AWS women performed equally or better than their non-quota colleagues."

Racecardriver Women are not less capable. Whilst I agree all women shortlist’s are not a solution, there are psychological biases we need to be aware of.

You can have a whole spread of entirely identical candidates, but we’ll always have a lean towards individuals we perceive to be similar to ourselves. Be that race/gender/social class whatever.

One only has to look at how political diversity is not tolerated. Try getting a job at a US media outlet that isn’t Fox News as a Republican, or watch your Higher education prospects evaporate if you add a Republican affiliation in your CV.

Personally I think the OP’s boyfriend is ultimately wrong as you can get on perfectly well and indeed thrive in today’s society as long as your willing to identify as a right on lefty dudebro and virtue signal your way all the way to the bank.

You can even still be a shit to women as long as you pick your targets from politically conservative women or TERFs. Everyone including many feminists will not only give you a pass but will actually publicly minimize your behaviour. Just observe how Jess Phillips was minimising Jo Cox’s husband actually putting his throat around women’s throats, yet a scant few weeks before was baying for the blood of a conservative MP who’d had a hand on a thigh!

Men are still at the top in truth, but a lot of those men have found a way of weaponising feminists to their advantage to decimate their political opponents.

The data reveal that, indeed, by this measure, women selected via AWS are slightly more ‘elite’ than their male and female Labour Party counterparts—a relationship that is not, however, statistically significant. More strikingly, perhaps, AWS women are far less ‘elite’ than men and women representing the other two parties. The most ‘elite’ group by far is Conservative men: roughly half of those elected in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005 were Oxbridge graduates. In each year, moreover, Conservative women were more ‘elite’ that Labour women, regardless of their mode of selection.

So STFU Owen Jones!