Reverse discrimination in race - and now gender (WIS kid can't play for girls team) [Archive]

Gwyn ap Nudd

30th November 2006, 06:55 PM

Apparently the case was lost because the law only covers organizations that accept government money and the district atheletic league is totally private. That it is a league of whose members include public schools, such as the one that Bukowski attended, doesn't seem to count.

Just like the Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays because they are a private organization that accepts no government funding -- except for the rent-free access to government owned facilities. They are suing now over being told by many cities they will have to start to pay for the space, just like anyone else, because the cities can no longer support their discrimination.

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 07:19 PM

what the hell is reverse discrimination? Its as silly a phrase as reverse racism

bigred

30th November 2006, 07:27 PM

what the hell is reverse discrimination? Its as silly a phrase as reverse racism
Thanks for your input Mr Sharpton :rolleyes:

Get a teacher to explain it to you. It's not complex, really.

slingblade

30th November 2006, 07:29 PM

"Reverse discrimination in race"

Reverse Racism: Or How the Pot Got to Call
the Kettle Black." (http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/fish.discrim.rever.html)

Merko

30th November 2006, 07:32 PM

It is indeed a very silly phrase. There is racism. There is discrimination. There is no 'proper' way for any of these phenomena.

However, I think there are very good reasons for not allowing boys to play in girls teams for most physical sports. Boys, at least of the older ages, are much bigger and stronger and could easily wipe the floor (generally) with their female co-players. Of course, a boy who is not particularly big and strong might have a good argument for wanting to join the girl's team, but on the other hand this might set a dangerous precedent.

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 08:00 PM

Thanks for your input Mr Sharpton :rolleyes:

Get a teacher to explain it to you. It's not complex, really.

oooooh burn

Im wounded

OOOPS

theres

wait for it

theres NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE RACISM

get your teacher to explain that

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 08:02 PM

"Reverse discrimination in race"

Reverse Racism: Or How the Pot Got to Call
the Kettle Black." (http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/fish.discrim.rever.html)

cool

yet complete and total bunk

Can you tell me WHY the term "reverse racism" makes a flawed assumption from the get go?

bigred

30th November 2006, 08:21 PM

theres NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE RACISM
lmao

Sadly, you're not the only person living this delusion. Word up.

Let me guess, you don't think we landed on no moon neither :marshall faulk:

Civil service worker?

Merko

30th November 2006, 08:22 PM

pipelineaudio: because if there is a 'reverse' racism, there would by inference be a 'straight racism'. There's no such thing. Racism is the form of discrimination that is based on race. Reversing this would mean NOT discriminating, but we already have a word for that: tolerance.

You can talk about discrimination of white people, perpetrated by black people, if you like. This exists, people have frequently been killed on such grounds. But I don't think there is a place in the world where this is, on a societal level, more prevalent than discrimination against black people, perpetrated by whites. There's some worrying signs from South Africa, but whites still make up the economic elite, so I don't think they are at that point yet.

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 08:29 PM

lmao

Sadly, you're not the only person living this delusion. Word up.

Let me guess, you don't think we landed on no moon neither :marshall faulk:

Civil service worker?

Nope there is racism and there is racism, there is no reverse racism

When white people hang a black man for being black, that is racism

When white people give a guy preference in consideration for college entrance because hes black, thats racism

When black men kick the crap out of whitey for being whitey thats racism

Please give me and example of reverse racism

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 08:31 PM

pipelineaudio: because if there is a 'reverse' racism, there would by inference be a 'straight racism'. There's no such thing. Racism is the form of discrimination that is based on race. Reversing this would mean NOT discriminating, but we already have a word for that: tolerance.

Thank you, though it was clear earlier you already knew it...I was asking for the sake of the intellectually challenged persons who posted earlier

You can talk about discrimination of white people, perpetrated by black people, if you like. This exists, people have frequently been killed on such grounds. But I don't think there is a place in the world where this is, on a societal level, more prevalent than discrimination against black people, perpetrated by whites. There's some worrying signs from South Africa, but whites still make up the economic elite, so I don't think they are at that point yet.

As long as we dont give it the silly name of reverse racism

Merko

30th November 2006, 08:44 PM

pipelineaudio: I do not agree that preferential treatment given on racial grounds is necessarily racism. Especially not if it is given for the express purpose of countering an empirically measurable bias in the opposite direction.

Mind you, I'm not qualified to express any opinions about most specific parts of US 'affirmative action' policy and I do believe there are specific cases where it has gone wrong. But even in these cases I would not attribute it to racism, but rather as an unfortunate result of trying to combat racial inequality using inappropriate means.

UserGoogol

30th November 2006, 09:24 PM

It is indeed a very silly phrase. There is racism. There is discrimination. There is no 'proper' way for any of these phenomena.

I don't think it's that silly. Yes, reverse racism is still racism, but it's racism done as a reaction to some other more popular sort of racism. Maybe counter-racism would be a more logical word, but you don't get the sexy alliteration that way. I don't think there's any linguistic reason why "Reverse X" cannot itself be a sort of X. When you drive a car in reverse, the car is still driving.

(Although I don't think that affirmative action is neccesarily racist. Depends on how they implement it and the motivtions they have behind it.)

slingblade

30th November 2006, 10:40 PM

cool

yet complete and total bunk

Can you tell me WHY the term "reverse racism" makes a flawed assumption from the get go?

Not until you first explain why that essay was complete and total bunk.

I'm betting you won't.

pipelineaudio

30th November 2006, 11:22 PM

Not until you first explain why that essay was complete and total bunk.

I'm betting you won't.

First off because it contains the retarded term "reverse racism" in the title

Next "WHAT I want to say, following Bush's reasoning, is that a similar forgetting of history has in recent years allowed some people to argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is reverse racism."

Do I need to forget history to realize affirmative action is racism? NO

Again sadly he uses the ridiculous term "reverse racism"

Moving on:

"The very phrase "reverse racism" contains the argument in exactly the form to which Bush objected: In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others."

Good thing I object to the ridiculous term "reverse racism", but the author instead is describing plain old racism.

"Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no."

No???

No?

So racism isnt racism?

ok

total and complete bunk, please dont make me go on

LawnOven

1st December 2006, 02:26 AM

You guys better watch out, or I may have to reverse discriminate on all your asses.

Here's the Moral Orel take on racism.

Part 1

oVcMMtgq-3M

Part 2

NNI5hHrm-N8

There's a little something for everyone in there.

Oh uh... probably NSFW

...and offensive.

slingblade

1st December 2006, 03:30 AM

First off because it contains the retarded term "reverse racism" in the title

Titles tell you what an essay is about. The essay is about the concept of reverse racism. Thus, the term belongs in the title. What are you quibbling about?

Next "WHAT I want to say, following Bush's reasoning, is that a similar forgetting of history has in recent years allowed some people to argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is reverse racism."

Do I need to forget history to realize affirmative action is racism? NO

He isn't saying you need to forget anything, so you've made a strawman argument.

Again sadly he uses the ridiculous term "reverse racism"

Because that's what he's talking about. You aren't making any sense here.
If he were talking of elephants, I'd expect him to use the term "elephant."
If he were speaking of baseball, I'd expect him to use the word "baseball."
He's speaking of reverse racism, so he uses that term. However, he's not just speaking about it, he's debunking it. He's exposing the fallacy inherent in the term.

Moving on:

"The very phrase "reverse racism" contains the argument in exactly the form to which Bush objected: In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others."

Good thing I object to the ridiculous term "reverse racism", but the author instead is describing plain old racism.

No. He's describing what people mean when they use the term "reverse racism." He must do this in order to debunk the term.

"Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no."

No???

No?

So racism isnt racism?

No. Reverse racism isn't racism.

total and complete bunk, please dont make me go on

If you don't finish this very short essay, it's no skin off my nose. I'll just remember that whenever you encounter something with which you don't agree, you jam your fingers in your ears and hum; you close your eyes and shake your head. You ignore it. You don't apply any thought to it, nor examine it, nor question it with logic and reason. You just say "it's bunk," and that settles it for you.

Good to know.

TragicMonkey

1st December 2006, 03:54 AM

It seems unfair. The boy wasn't trying to "gain advantage" by joining a girls' team that he'd lack in a boys' team: the school doesn't have a boys' gymnastics team. So it's either the girls' team or nothing.

But apparently it has to be nothing.

Courts have previously ruled that letting boys compete on girls' teams jeopardizes opportunities for girls. But Bukowski, who had competed in gymnastics at a local YMCA, argued the case was similar to recent examples of girls who were allowed to compete on boys' teams in football and wrestling.

So, it would "jeopardize opportunities for girls"...who already have the team. It's all theirs. Letting one boy on the team would hurt them...how? Merko's remark

Boys, at least of the older ages, are much bigger and stronger and could easily wipe the floor (generally) with their female co-players. Of course, a boy who is not particularly big and strong might have a good argument for wanting to join the girl's team, but on the other hand this might set a dangerous precedent.

doesn't seem to apply to gymnastics. Not unless the school practices a radical revisioning of the sport! Is it combat gymnastics?

So, if a school lacks a girls' wrestling team, a girl can join the boys' team. Because she deserves the opportunity. But if a school lacks a boys' gymnastics team, a boy cannot join the girls' team, because the girls deserve opportunity.

Looks like ordinary sexism to me, not this reverse racism or whatever.

CFLarsen

1st December 2006, 05:02 AM

Just like the Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays because they are a private organization that accepts no government funding -- except for the rent-free access to government owned facilities.

The Boy Scouts of America, perhaps. Not in Denmark, for sure.

Bruce

1st December 2006, 05:24 AM

I think I get it!

If you are part of a minority race and a victim of discrimination committed by someone in the majority race, it is called racism. Reverse racism is when someone in the majority race is a victim of discrimination committed by someone in the minority race.

This forum is dominated by members and monitored by a minority of admins. When one of the admins censors the material of a member, it's called Censorship. If a member were to censor the material of an admin, it would be called Reverse Censorship.

In my previous job, the company was dominated by majority of morons. This moronic elite would interfere with my projects to the degree that they were no longer profitable. Were I to interfere with a moron's project, that would be like Reverse Stupidity.

When a two headed goat kills a one-headed goat - Reverse Evolution.
When a car is going the wrong way on the highway - Reverse Traffic.
When a nerd kicks the ass of a football player - Reverse Bullying.

This is kind of fun! :)

skeptifem

1st December 2006, 06:09 AM

gymnastics is one of the few sports where the mens/womens divisions are completely different. He would either have to take a beginners class to learn womens(uneven bars instead of even/rings, vaulting instead of pummel horse, floor w/music and dance, etc) or they would have to teach mens for the one guy in the class, so i can see why they wouldnt want to for practical reasons. And I find those reasons much more logical that the reasons girls get dismissed from traditionally male sports:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/ap_on_fe_st/weightlifting_class

I don't understand what it is that makes society act like men can't help themselves! Why would they even have supervision there if the principal thought the teacher would rape the girl? why punish the girl for that lack of trust for everyone else? Do teachers never rape male students? Do men never rape each other?

at least they came to their senses and let her back in after awhile, but jeez, i would feel pretty terrible if I got dismissed from a class for that.

Dave1001

1st December 2006, 07:35 AM

skeptifem

1st December 2006, 08:15 AM

^^I agree completely. Boxing/wrestling uses those determinations, and I dont see why big, strong manish women should get to play while average men or less athletic men wouldnt get to.

Merko

1st December 2006, 09:28 AM

skeptifem

1st December 2006, 10:11 AM

But note that such a division is no less arbitrary than one based on sex (which is surely much more than just genitals).

how so? Sex is determined by sex organs.

Snide

1st December 2006, 10:16 AM

[rant to the pedants]
Fine. Reverse discrimination is technically a misnomer. Good for you to spot that. And the 2000s didn't actually start until the year 2001. Woo-hoo, we're happy for you. And people drive in a parkway, but park in a driveway. I am so enlightened.
[/end rant]

:)

Merko

1st December 2006, 10:27 AM

nails: Just because it is determined by genitals does not mean it does not have other implications. Hormone levels would be a relevant factor, for example. Then someone might say: 'ok, but then we should classify based on measured testosterone levels, rather than just this statistical connection'. Fine, go ahead. But do we really want to perform blood samples on our children before they can go and play some football?

Most of the time when we want to draw a line, it's not going to be perfect. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea to never draw any lines at all.

pipelineaudio

1st December 2006, 11:22 AM

how so? Sex is determined by sex organs.

Because typically along with the genital differences come differences in strength to weight ratios, differences in strength in each area of the body, etc...

One perfect example I can think of right off the bat was flatland freestyle BMX. Back in the 80's it was balancing type tricks, gymnastics style, and the girls utterly, humiliatingly dominated whenever they entered. Nowdays with the rolling and scuffing type of tricks, in many cases working on upper body strength, we just dont see girls anymore

skeptifem

2nd December 2006, 06:30 AM

skeptifem

2nd December 2006, 06:36 AM

Dave1001

2nd December 2006, 06:37 AM

Dave: Could be worth a try. Not sure if height or weight would be more appropritate in every case, but I'm not slamming the idea. But note that such a division is no less arbitrary than one based on sex (which is surely much more than just genitals). We'd have people complaining that they were discriminated against because of their length/weight.

Height and weight seem less arbitrary to me than sex, since sex seems to me to be mostly be serving as a poor proxy for height and weight.

One has two professional athletes, and both are 5'7" 150 pounds. In whatever sport, seems to me they should be in the same competition pool, regardless of gender.

Jekyll

2nd December 2006, 07:04 AM

pounce

2nd December 2006, 01:07 PM

First off because it contains the retarded term "reverse racism" in the title

Next "WHAT I want to say, following Bush's reasoning, is that a similar forgetting of history has in recent years allowed some people to argue, and argue persuasively, that affirmative action is reverse racism."

Do I need to forget history to realize affirmative action is racism? NO

Again sadly he uses the ridiculous term "reverse racism"

Moving on:

"The very phrase "reverse racism" contains the argument in exactly the form to which Bush objected: In this country whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others. Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others."

Good thing I object to the ridiculous term "reverse racism", but the author instead is describing plain old racism.

"Isn't one as bad as the other? The answer is no."

No???

No?

So racism isnt racism?

ok

total and complete bunk, please dont make me go on

to be clear, we are in total agreement.

racism exists and is bad. racism can come from any race and be applied to any other race. it isn't owned by any single race, nor is it practiced by any single race.

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

the use of the incorrect and misleading coloquialism "reverse racism" implies that whites own racism, and any racism against whites is the reverse of that - hence reverse racism. by definition, that is a racist tack on the issue and doesn't logically follow. in every case, it is simply racism, and that term applies regardless of which race is in question.

only racism exists, reverse racism is an incorrect and misleading term that i take great issue with.

Dave1001

2nd December 2006, 01:23 PM

Height and weight seem less arbitrary to me than sex, since sex seems to me to be mostly be serving as a poor proxy for height and weight.

One has two professional athletes, and both are 5'7" 150 pounds. In whatever sport, seems to me they should be in the same competition pool, regardless of gender.
No. There is huge difference between the sexes both in terms of strength to weight ratio and where this strength is distributed. As an example, I don't believe that there are any women who could perform to olympic standard on gymnastics rings.

Then in sports where that's relevant, we should make the categories based on strength to weight ratio and distribution, rather than genitals. Because I suspect there is significant overlap between the sexes on that measure too.

Otherwise men on the low end of the spread for their gender and women at the high end are as arbitrarily disadvantaged and favored, respectively, as the average man would be over the average woman.

Tmy

2nd December 2006, 03:50 PM

Race and Gender arent comparable in this situation.

The distinction in races is really superfical man made distiction, but for gender there are specific physical differences tween the two.

The reason we split male/female sports is to protect the usually physically smaller weaker females. We also do this in men sports too. In pee wee football you can only be a certain weight. We have weight classes in many sports. This is all usually no big deal. Sometimes a women can phyiscally compete with the men and they are let on the boyz team because there isnt the phyiscal danger we normally worry about.

Why dont people freak out as much over gender divided bathrooms?

Tmy

2nd December 2006, 03:55 PM

to be clear, we are in total agreement.

racism exists and is bad. racism can come from any race and be applied to any other race. it isn't owned by any single race, nor is it practiced by any single race.

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

the use of the incorrect and misleading coloquialism "reverse racism" implies that whites own racism, and any racism against whites is the reverse of that - hence reverse racism. by definition, that is a racist tack on the issue and doesn't logically follow. in every case, it is simply racism, and that term applies regardless of which race is in question.

only racism exists, reverse racism is an incorrect and misleading term that i take great issue with.

The above definition or "racism" contates negative use of racial differences. Just cause something is "race based" doesnt mean its "racism".

bigred

2nd December 2006, 04:35 PM

The reason we split male/female sports is to protect the usually physically smaller weaker females. And that's relevant in gymnastics because-?

Why dont people freak out as much over gender divided bathrooms?That's upsetting too. And theirs are always nicer. friggin discrimination against the man again :cool:

Tmy

2nd December 2006, 04:40 PM

And that's relevant in gymnastics because-?

That's upsetting too. And theirs are always nicer. friggin discrimination against the man again :cool:

I didnt say I agreed with him being booted from the team. I think he should be included on the gymnast team. Its not gonna hurt anyone. Except him........on the uneven bars! (I dont think they do mens uneven bars).

I remember this one story of a highschool kid who got on the gals feildhockey team. They even made him wear the skirt in order to get him to quit.

bigred

2nd December 2006, 04:43 PM

I didnt say I agreed with him being booted from the team. I think he should be included on the gymnast team. Its not gonna hurt anyone. Except him........on the uneven bars! (I dont think they do mens uneven bars).lol, I mean ouch.

I remember this one story of a highschool kid who got on the gals feildhockey team. They even made him wear the skirt in order to get him to quit.I think that's fair if he's allowed to shower w/them.

TragicMonkey

2nd December 2006, 06:50 PM

That's upsetting too. And theirs are always nicer. friggin discrimination against the man again :cool:

Theirs may be nicer, but they have to form long lines and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait to use them. Whereas men get in, go, and then leave. Women don't seem to be able to use the bathroom in less than fifteen minutes.

bigred

2nd December 2006, 08:34 PM

Theirs may be nicer, but they have to form long lines and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait to use them. Whereas men get in, go, and then leave. Women don't seem to be able to use the bathroom in less than fifteen minutes.
Remember not all of us work for the gov't.

TragicMonkey

2nd December 2006, 08:45 PM

Remember not all of us work for the gov't.

Um, neither do I. But I do notice that people who get paid by the hour tend to take their sweet time in the bathroom. "Hey, I'm getting paid to be on the toilet!!" When it shouldn't be about the money. It should be about "I'm at work, but I'm partly naked!!" Professionalism!

Polaris

3rd December 2006, 11:23 AM

And that's relevant in gymnastics because-?

That's upsetting too. And theirs are always nicer. friggin discrimination against the man again :cool:

You'd be surprised. Talk to a janitor, womens' rooms generally aren't a pretty thing to behold. Common sense dictates that mens' rooms would be worse, but that's not the case.

And there are unisex bathrooms in the US. They're called mens' rooms. Go to a busy club or a sporting event and you'll see what I mean. Now, of course, if a man were to go into a woman's room there'd be hell to pay for the man. But that's just the way things are - complaining about it just sounds petty. If I were a woman I'd probably do cut into a mens' room if I had to really go and the womens' room was full of socializers. They should all be unisex, IMHO, but until the American sexual connotations of going to the bathroom are gone (which will happen about 500 years after the cockroach goes extinct) that isn't gonna happen.

TragicMonkey

3rd December 2006, 11:28 AM

I think the quality of the bathroom depends on the number of people who are using it. At my office, most of the employees are women. There are very few guys on my floor, and we all know each other, so there is incentive to be neat because if anyone weren't, there'd be a short list of suspects. Plus, we have more of a feeling of ownership of the bathroom because there are so few of us. Whereas the large number of women there renders their activities somewhat anonymous. They can get away with being uncivil in the bathroom because the sheer number of suspects will protect them from accusation. And they are sharing it among so many, so they are less proprietarial about their bathroom. They are also under more pressure to hurry because of their numbers, whereas the men can take their time. Sometimes we go in there to escape from all the women for a while.

qayak

3rd December 2006, 12:01 PM

Then in sports where that's relevant, we should make the categories based on strength to weight ratio and distribution, rather than genitals. Because I suspect there is significant overlap between the sexes on that measure too.

Otherwise men on the low end of the spread for their gender and women at the high end are as arbitrarily disadvantaged and favored, respectively, as the average man would be over the average woman.

This pretty much happens in sports right now and it turns out that the divider is between genders. There are more than enough men that are physically stronger, taller, faster, etc. than all the women, to fill up every position in the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc.

So they start women only teams to allow women to compete in sports. If they allowed men to also apply for those positions you would soon find that all, or most, of the positions would be held by men.

Now, before I get jumped on, I don't think this division has a whole lot of bearing on the quality of the game. I never thought it would be the case but I prefer to watch women's hockey at an international level over men's.

I like the fact tht a woman making little or no money playing the game has the guts to stand up and say, "Yeah, we got our butts kicked fair and square but we'll be back better and stronger next time!", as opposed to a mega-million dollar man whining about the refereeing, the cheating, the missed calls, the rules, crappy team mates, crappy coaching, and anything else that enters his pea brain to be vomited out his big mouth.

The biggest disgrace in Canada was when both the men's and women's team won gold at the Olympics and the only team that got coverage was the men's. They had videos, books, television shows done about them while the women got a little thing at the end that said "Oh yeah. The women won too."

What has happened since? The men's team has been beaten everytime but the women keep right on winning without all the hoopla. The overall quality of women's hockey at that level is head and shoulders above the men's.

Merko

3rd December 2006, 12:45 PM

there is too much variance in hormones, builds, and well pretty much everything between genders for it to be a meaningful distinction. thats what i think anyway.

Sex=sex organs, it doesnt determine a whole lot else.

I have to disagree. While many differences are more statistical than absolute, this doesn't necessarily mean it's not a valid way to make a distinction. For really important things, like who to allow into a certain job or so, I agree we should never use such weak indicators. But being allowed on some kids sports team or not is not the end of the world. We can't expect everyone organising even the simplest social event to be prepared to get into advanced biological testing just to be a little bit fairer. Because even then it will never be 100% fair, you will never find a way to draw the line that makes sense in every individual case. If you don't draw any lines at all however, the result is pretty obvious, for example girls would never ever have any chance to play basketball at any higher competitive levels.

Mind you, I don't really have an opinion about whether or not it was a good idea to ban this particular kid from this particular group, or not. I just think it is reasonable for a court not to meddle with it.

Polaris

3rd December 2006, 03:35 PM

I like the fact tht a woman making little or no money playing the game has the guts to stand up and say, "Yeah, we got our butts kicked fair and square but we'll be back better and stronger next time!", as opposed to a mega-million dollar man whining about the refereeing, the cheating, the missed calls, the rules, crappy team mates, crappy coaching, and anything else that enters his pea brain to be vomited out his big mouth.

Amen to that.

Raphael

3rd December 2006, 05:02 PM

I never thought it would be the case but I prefer to watch women's hockey at an international level over men's.

I don't. Our team (Canada) wins in women's hockey because the International competition are much newer to the game in numbers and dedication. (Except for the US). The gap will continue to close, and then it will be just like the men's in terms of competiveness.

Certainly I watch the Women's games and cheer for them, but the skating is much slower, and the skill and tactics are on par with the better High School teams around here.

qayak

3rd December 2006, 06:40 PM

Our team (Canada) wins in women's hockey because the International competition are much newer to the game in numbers and dedication. (Except for the US). The gap will continue to close, and then it will be just like the men's in terms of competiveness.

Absolutely agreed.

[/QUOTE]Certainly I watch the Women's games and cheer for them, but the skating is much slower, and the skill and tactics are on par with the better High School teams around here.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Yes the skating and shooting are slower but the tactics are not of a lower caliber. Tactics take intelligence and the ability to thnk fast. Women compete equally with men in those departments.

Yes, the games are different but the one a person prefers is not dependent on the quality of the game, it is more dependent on personal choice.

luchog

4th December 2006, 03:28 PM

I don't think it's that silly. Yes, reverse racism is still racism, but it's racism done as a reaction to some other more popular sort of racism. Maybe counter-racism would be a more logical word, but you don't get the sexy alliteration that way. I don't think there's any linguistic reason why "Reverse X" cannot itself be a sort of X. When you drive a car in reverse, the car is still driving.

Yes, "counter-racism" is a far more logical and appropriate construction, which would mean racism done in reaction to a perceived racism of policy or action. Non-reactionary preferential treatment of any sort is racism, regardless of the reason or the ethnicities of those involved. "Reverse racism" is a semantically null term, as the root meanings do not combine to form a valid concept.

luchog

4th December 2006, 03:37 PM

If you are part of a minority race and a victim of discrimination committed by someone in the majority race, it is called racism. Reverse racism is when someone in the majority race is a victim of discrimination committed by someone in the minority race.
Nope, that's a semi-logical assumption, but not supported by real-world examples. For example the apartheid policies of South Africa were termed "racist", rather than "reverse racist", despite the fact that the white South Africans were the minority, and black South Africans the majority.

Another explanation that I've heard is that racism is discrimination by those with institutional power against those of ethnicities other than the one those in power belong to; whereas reverse racism is discrimination in favour of said ethnicities.

Both usages, particularly the latter, point up the fact that the term "reverse racism" is not a valid descriptive per se, but is strictly a political construction with no inherent meaning. IIRC it was originally coined by opponents of quota-based Affirmative Action programs to point up the racism inherent in quotas and other preferential (as opposed to equal) treatment based solely or primarily on ethnicity.

Marc L

4th December 2006, 03:40 PM

Nevermind. It was answered upthread.

Marc

Marc L

4th December 2006, 03:46 PM

Common sense dictates that mens' rooms would be worse, but that's not the case.

Um...why?

Marc

luchog

4th December 2006, 03:47 PM

The biggest disgrace in Canada was when both the men's and women's team won gold at the Olympics and the only team that got coverage was the men's. They had videos, books, television shows done about them while the women got a little thing at the end that said "Oh yeah. The women won too."

What has happened since? The men's team has been beaten everytime but the women keep right on winning without all the hoopla. The overall quality of women's hockey at that level is head and shoulders above the men's.

I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, it's the hoopla and hype (and money) that drives the prima donna attitudes of the high-visibility pros. I can guarantee that if womens' pro sports ever got the coverage and commercial attention that men's pro sports do, they'd quickly develop the same kind of whiny, spoiled-brat, poor little rich kid attitudes. Just compare the high-profile men's sports with the low-profile ones, and you'll see a similar difference.

Bruce

4th December 2006, 07:22 PM

Both usages, particularly the latter, point up the fact that the term "reverse racism" is not a valid descriptive per se, but is strictly a political construction with no inherent meaning. IIRC it was originally coined by opponents of quota-based Affirmative Action programs to point up the racism inherent in quotas and other preferential (as opposed to equal) treatment based solely or primarily on ethnicity.

That's a very long way of saying it's bulls**t. I'm impressed. :)

Dave1001

4th December 2006, 07:30 PM

Edit

pipelineaudio

5th December 2006, 12:35 PM

I can guarantee that if womens' pro sports ever got the coverage and commercial attention that men's pro sports do, they'd quickly develop the same kind of whiny, spoiled-brat, poor little rich kid attitudes. Just compare the high-profile men's sports with the low-profile ones, and you'll see a similar difference.

EXACTLY!!!

See also what happens when ESPN comes in and becomes the sanctioning body for "extreme" sports

Not so "extreme" anymore, just a competition for who can spill the most blood for viewing pleasure

Polaris

5th December 2006, 04:48 PM

Um...why?

Marc

Why what?

Why does common sense dictate that mens' rooms would be nastier? Because the sex that does the things societally accepted as "gross" in public "belching, scratching, nose-picking, breaking wind, spitting, etc." tend to be men, so by extension it stand to reason to expect what men do in private to be more gross. And there's the whole not being able to aim thing.

Or why is it not the case? I don't know the answer to that.