It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Sphota
Originally posted by Sphota
How is being a "white" male not part of diversity?
The need for "diversity education", "diversity instruction" or a "diversity inclusion team" comes from minorities being oppressed and discriminated against. Who were their oppressors and discriminators? White males. I think it's pretty easy to understand.
I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.
Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
PC "Diversity" does not mean helping people of other cultures to acclimate to Western European Christian culture.
PC "Diversity" means destruction of Western European Christian culture. And those of us who pay attention to history know from whence it cometh.
Originally posted by Sphota
Valid, but what if it was a man who was raped or a transgender victim?
There is no such thing as "white"
1) polarize us, pushing us out of the dialogue (counter productive for those who say they are "inclusive"), pushing us toward the side that says it's ok, embrace your "whiteness", we've got your back against those other people.
2) Reinforces my so-called "white guilt"
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
2) Reinforces my so-called "white guilt"
If you have "white guilt", that's really YOUR issue, not theirs. It's not their job to assure you or alleviate you of your misplaced feelings of guilt. To me, "white guilt" is worthless and should be dealt with and reasoned out by you, not them. I carry no guilt for being white and neither should you (if you are).
Originally posted by Sphota
White as an ethnic term is non existent, by clinging to it we get nowhere. If you are talking about the dominant culture, fine, but call it by other terms,
...because if my supposed ethnic purity vis-a-vis my skin color and perceived ethnic make-up are supposed to, on the one side give me brownie points, and on the other tear me down with guilt, then I don't get it.
I don't feel privileged...
I think you and I are basically of the same mindset, but we have different ways of resolving the issue.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Sphota
Originally posted by Sphota
How is being a "white" male not part of diversity?
The need for "diversity education", "diversity instruction" or a "diversity inclusion team" comes from minorities being oppressed and discriminated against. Who were their oppressors and discriminators? White males. I think it's pretty easy to understand.
I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Sphota
I believe you are trying to break down the issue to purely technological terms and forgetting about the other aspects of diversity.
For many years discrimination was based on absolutely nothing other than how you looked. If you appeared white you were given more priviledge in society. These diversity groups are made to combat that specific issue by pursuing policies of integration into this so called "white society".
To have an individual that represents the very thing you are there to try and change, even if only in appearance, could be counter-productive.
We may say he is the best person for the job but that only applies when you look at qualifications, it doesn't take into consideration the appearence aspect of the problem. Can this man really represent diversity?
I think he would do just fine but many people don't want him and they do have a point they can justify.
Originally posted by Krakatoa
And what if that man (in your example) had been a victim of rape himself? What if he was a gay man that was a victim of rape? Wouldn't that qualify him to be involved in a rape crisis group, or maybe even lead it? IF not, then it boils down to a discrimination based upon his gender.
Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by TDawgRex
I imagine that Ian Coley, the one who made the discriminating statement, is probably in some hot water now with the university because of his inability to keep his trap shut.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.
Originally posted by sonnny1
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would LIKE for the pendulum to just swing toward the middle and stop dead center, but that's not how it historically works. A women's rape group would not likely have their president be a male, no matter how sympathetic he was to their cause.
And that's the problem. Does a male need to be raped, to qualify for the position? Would he even be considered if he wasn't raped?
I agree though 100% that it needs to stop dead center, as a "human race" we need to stand together, and question "correctness" on all levels also.
edit on 18-5-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Hopechest
I think he would do just fine but many people don't want him and they do have a point they can justify.