|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 04, @06:45PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I don't think the equation can leap from this Judge's defence of racial prejuduce to her being an unfairn judge. I think we need more evidence of the latter in order to equate the two.
I do believe that using the race card is becoming more prominent in our culture everyday. The Liberals here in Canada totally discriminate against many whites from entering the country in favour of visible minorities and minority women. They do this for one reason and one reason alone, race and gender baiting politics.
What some people are calling "priviledge" others my call "heritage".
I am Irish by desent. If anyone remembers the 'Irish Need Not Apply' signs perhaps they feel I might have a reason to claim restitution for what the government has allowed to happen to me.
The 'White Men Need Not Apply' sign seems to be displayed prominantly all over North America these days. But to disregard that blacks have faced massive prejuduces against them would be a disgrace to us all.
Abolition is a 'white man's' or 'western' concept. We have a history loaded with one group enslaving another (not just whites over blacks).
To me reverse discrimination is really just discrimination with a distracting prefix added to it.
I don't know if the above mentioned Judge would discriminate against me because Im a white male. I for one believe a white male judge discriminated against me because of my sex and possible my race. Meaning he threw a bone to the political mafia dogs. Or sometimes known as advocacy groups.
However I like that the black woman accused the espanic woman of racism. The espanic woman seemed stunned that she would be called racist because she was espanic. Everyone from any race can be prejuduced towards another race its standard logic. And allowing so called minority groups the right to belittle other groups in the name of progress is not fixing the problem it is advancing it.
But to finish, I don't think Im capable of deciding that this judge will discriminate against me simply by what I have read. She is in a tuff jam and she is now using desperate measures to get out of it. The story leads me to believe she is guilty, but I still want to hear her side of the story.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect I don't think this particular article does a thing in advancing men's rights. While we can all witness things and draw parallels to men's issues, there are enough articles that deal with those things directly that we don't need to try to equate race with gender in cases like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't take a whole lot of research to find plenty of evidence that American Liberals tend to demand lockstep compliance in certain areas in order to retain their "bona fides" and preferences, whether racial or sexual, are certainly one of the primary issues.
It's not indicated what court this pathetic excuse for a jurist presided over; even were it known the content of the article is insufficient to either induce or deduce whether a white male might recieve the shaft.
It is NOT, however, an unreasonable question, even an assumption, to infer that those who demand special treatment according to their race (And accusing someone of arresting them "just because I'm black" is ceratainly the backdoor method of this) are willing to extend it. And since gender is the siamese twin of quotas and preferences, it's not too far out to lump it together.
Thus, while a white man may not get an unfair hearing in her court, it's probably a good bet that women and minorities get considerations and a free tally in the "mitigation" column that is otherwise unavailable to America's Favorite Whipping Boy - the white male.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @10:43AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The Mens Movement must be all-embracing if it is to succed. It is for men of all colors, races, creeds, ethnicities and nationalities. The feminists are expert are dividing men along these lines. No posts should appear on this site that help feminists to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, really?
Explain to me then how you can condemn special breaks and special privileges for people based on their gender, and embrace it according to their race? Expound on how it is alright to hold people to differing standards on the basis of their race, and yet wrong to do so on their sex?
They are rhetorical questions, and I'll save you the logical contortions and semantic masturbation. You can't. It's both logically and philosophically inconsistant.
You're attempting to look at men's rights in a vacuum, which will result in the kicking of your ass in a political arena. The pheminazi's did not make that mistake; they intertwined themselves with the civil rights movement, and weaseled special treatment for women at the expense of men in as a fait accompli of law, completely under the radar and part and parcel of "affirmative action."
So, ever wonder why you don't find a lot of black masculists? Hmm? Could it be that they can't possibly argue against affirmative action for women without arguing against it for themselves?
Sooner or later the race and gender based preferences fiasco has got to end, and it will have to end all at once, if the world is ever to move ahead, people need to get off of the A.A. tit. Black men and Hispanic men need to stop looking to their damn women for approval and permission to be men; and they have got to see their own value for themselves. I can't provide them with their self-esteem or self-respect.
Let me riddle you this: You have a disease, and go to the doctor's office. You're in a new town, and are looking for a doctor. The pictures of the doctor's are on the wall; a White Guy, a white woman, a Black guy, and a hispanic woman. Who do you pick?
Who do you know for a fact has gotten into college on the basis of their qualifications alone? Who do you know for a face didn't recieve race or gender norming points on their MCATs? Who was accepted into med school, and passed their courses without an affirmative action pass, or race norming or gender norming? Who didn't recieve "x" many points to be accepted into an internship or residency?
In short, who is the only one in that bunch who you can be reasonably sure is where they are because they are good, and not because someone overlooked a sub-par test, or sub-par performance?
It's very relevant, because the damn pheminists have already succeeded in dividing us along those lines, by convincing the American Black man that he can't compete with whites on equal footing, and he needs them. Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but Gloria Steinem and her band of racist sluts managed to put the collars right back on, and worse, have brainwashed the various races into making sure nobody tries to unlock their collars.
You can't undo preferences without undoing preferences across the board. And you sure as hell can't convince someone that one accident of birth is irrelevant, but another is relevant.
Use your head for something besides a device to hold your ears apart, hm?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @01:48PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"White Men: America's favorite whipping boy"
I like that.
And I agree, sad but true, the people who have reaped from affirmative action programs the most were actually white women not black men.
And it was the Democrates who supported the KKK.
Calling someone a racist based on their belief that A.A. is bullshit is a 'racist' remark. And not one of objectivety.
However as good as the arguements that have been put forth here that the judge may or may not discriminate against white males, or give preferential treatment to others over white males is still a subjective one.
I have certainly seen fat white middle aged male judges give favortism to women/minorities over white males.
Oddly it has been conservative women that have done more to be fair to men and fair to women that I have seen. Not that it makes a stereotype, just saying how I have seen it.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @02:17PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Gonzo Kid:
If a group (based on color/ethnicity/religon/nationality) has suffered discrimination then there is a certain rationale in according certain privileges to that group for as long as the underlying discrimination exists.
Women do not suffer discrimination in Western Societies; consequently,there is no justification for them to hold onto their traditional privileges.
The mens movement must not allow itself to become divided on racial or other lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @03:10PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"The mens movement must not allow itself to become divided on racial or other lines. "
Isn't that the point he's making? His choice is to make all things across the board regardless of age,gender,race. Rely on merrit rather than percieved victim status.
Its like saying, "Well blacks were slaves for years, its only fair that we now make whites slaves for years".
The wellfare system is keeping the blackman down. Affrimtative Action is creating more distrust and racial tension.
Its the same as saying 'All animals are equal, some are more equal than others'. Crying victim doesn't make you more equal than others. Even being a victim doesn't make you more equal than others. The compassion should rely on the hearts of the individual, not the enforcement of a brute squad that merely discriminates against another group to gain elite status for themselves. In that case both parties are being lied too as the culprits walk to the bank.
Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @04:02PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the Arfo-American male has progressed from being a second class citizen by virtue of his race to being a third class citizen by virtue of his gender. This is the message the mens movement should be getting across.
I don't think this website should become a forum for debating racial and ethnic issues. It will only prove divisive. Posts will be made which will alienate men from the mens movement even when no offense was intended. Some men have been victims of "positive discrimination"; however, criticising "positive discrimination" on this site only serves the feminist cause. They will point to it as evidence that the mens movement is a "white mans' " club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @04:06PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the "typo". I meant to say "Afra-American"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't matter. It's a fact. Affirmative action exists. Affirmative action is used for racial reasons. Affirmative action is used for gender reasons. If you get rid of it for gender, the racial aspect must go. If you keep it for race, it stays for gender. It's a tautology.
If we are to achieve gender equity, then laws must become gender-blind. Oops! There goes affirmative action! But it has to go. It's foundational, it's fundamental. So long as it is alright to discriminate for gender we will be stuck.
But, if it's not allright to discriminate on sex, out goes race, too. Q.E.D. What? (Hyphen)-American man thinks he can't live without affirmative action? Well, he's gone anyway.
Want to stick your head in the sand? Or lie and conceal it? Your business. Evilly clever, these pheminists, I'll give them that.
The division is there. Ignore it at your peril.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 05, @06:29PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue here is , big government or little government.
Racial baiting politics are some people's bread and butter. Very fattening butter for some individuals I might add.
You raise some valid points or concerns. But the 'white man's club' stereotype is probably what they are going to say anyways.
Fascists are communists etc... have always preyed on peoples fears. We have to break it now, not allow it to re-adapt itself to another form.
The best activism we can give someone is to strive for greater hights, to realize they can overcome their problems. Not pander to them for votes and prey on their insecurities.
Socialism is the disease, in the end we are fighting 'Statism' and nothing else.
Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
