|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 27, @02:04PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
''Women have been struggling for equality for a long time. But once you reach equality, you have to treat people in kind. You can't treat people as you have been treated in the past.''
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He said, however, that he hopes he won't become some sort of reverse-discrimination poster boy, and that his case will not be used to reverse any of the gains made by women in athletics.
This is the one line in that story that truly bothers me. "Some sort of reverse discrimination poster boy." He wasn't the victim of any kind of REVERSE discrimination. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. You're either a victim of discrimination or you aren't. The fact that he's a white male doesn't mean he can't be discriminated against, nor does it mean that discrimination against him is the REVERSE of discrimination against someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just sent this to the Boston Globe:
To The Editor:
I must take issue with the use of the words "reverse discrimination" in your Dec. 20 story on page B1 about Jim Babyak's struggles against discrimination by his employer. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination. Qualifying the word "discrimination" with "reverse" implies that the writer (I noticed it wasn't a direct quote from Babyak) believes that discrimination against a white man is somehow different from discrimination against a woman or a black man, that it is somehow less of--or a "positive" version of--the offense.
Discrimination based upon race or sex is discrimination based upon race or sex. The fact that the victim, in this case, was a white male neither qualifies nor modifies the nature of the term. Mr. Babyak was doing his job and getting rave reviews, he should never have been fired because he has a penis.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
