Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[sothereiwas]

7 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Doesn’t this mean that the people in charge of admissions must be doing a great job?

Can we use that same reasoning to justify the male domination of the tech industry?

[Weezy1973]

There’s a difference between not allowing black people to go to Harvard because of a belief that they’re inferior to white people, and acknowledging that black people are equal to white people and therefore, all things being equal, their representation at Harvard should mimic that of the US as a whole. 

[Weezy1973]

2 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Can we use that same reasoning to justify the male domination of the tech industry?

Men dominate the tech industry because men are more interested in tech than women. 

[homecoming]

8 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Because NBA players are pros, not unpaid amateurs, thus the team they play for is their employer. Discrimination in employment was raised, I responded. The point of the example isn't that playing ball would be a realistic life goal for everyone to strive for as children. The point is that sometimes due to complex factors a non-representative cross section of the population might self select into a given role. This is curious and anomalous and might be worthy of being looked into but is not proof in and of itself that shenanigans are afoot. 

There is nothing wrong with the recruitment practices of the NBA even though the racial demographics of the teams isn't representative of Americas demographics, as far as I can tell, and that is the point. The NBA has very few female players as well, and they seem to be very ageist. 

What about the fact that the NBA and entry into it is for a minority of the population anyway, though? There are many studies on the demographics of the NBA, the NFL, the UK Premier League, etc. As I mentioned before, I'm not really into sport, so this isn't something I'm equipped to offer much input into, aside from my comment earlier. The discussion on the NBA is indeed interesting on its own, but just didn't like the way it was bought up earlier by the other commenter in a bid to prove some sort of point. 

Most Premier League footballers are retired by their mid-thirties. That doesn't really strike me as ageist, just that people after a certain age are more prone to injuries, can't perform as well, etc. Some footballers stay on until later (like D. Beckham), but they just choose not to. It's unlikely that an older person would be interested in getting into professional sport, I assume, because of the strain on the body? Women's football (soccer) is also not that popular, and not very well-paid, and that is a sexist practice, and should be looked into, IMO.

But either way, most people aren't trying to get into sport, are they? It seems more relevant to tackle the things that are accessible, like employment and education.

Anyway, I haven't delved into sport much since I was a lot younger, so I will freely admit that I am not the best person to debate that with. 

[Emilie Jolie]

In its first 4 years, the NBA was 100% white, players included. The first black players who got drafted in couldn't even eat or sleep in the same hotel as their white teammates because of segregation, to put a historical context to it.

The NBA composition is actually a good example of how unequal the system still is in the US, when sporting excellence means a scholarship, which means getting a quality education and escaping poverty, yet the overwhelming majority of head coaches and coaching teams, NBA executives and team owners are white. The power structure is clear as day. That's systemic racism. 

To get back on topic, my personal experience with anti-white prejudice in daily life has been non-existent (I'm white and don't live in the US). Same for those around me. I've always lived and worked in cosmopolitan, multicultural areas with people from all over the world where skin colour is not a factor. I don't know any white person who's suffered from prejudice because of their skin tone, but that obviously doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

When looking further into anti-white prejudice for this thread, I stumbled upon this quote from known white supremacist and segragationist Bob Whitaker, according to whom 'anti-racist is code for anti-white'. His white supremacy conspiracy theory centers around the idea that multiculturalism equates to white genocide, and he was very much opposed to affirmative action. He had a prominant role in the Reagan administration, which makes me wonder what sort of influence he's had in US politics.

 

[homecoming]

12 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

In its first 4 years, the NBA was 100% white, players included. The first black players who got drafted in couldn't even eat or sleep in the same hotel as their white teammates because of segregation, to put a historical context to it.

The NBA composition is actually a good example of how unequal the system still is in the US, when sporting excellence means a scholarship, which means getting a quality education and escaping poverty, yet the overwhelming majority of head coaches and coaching teams, NBA executives and team owners are white. The power structure is clear as day. That's systemic racism. 

To get back on topic, my personal experience with anti-white prejudice in daily life has been non-existent (I'm white and don't live in the US). Same for those around me. I've always lived and worked in cosmopolitan, multicultural areas with people from all over the world where skin colour is not a factor. I don't know any white person who's suffered from prejudice because of their skin tone, but that obviously doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

When looking further into anti-white prejudice for this thread, I stumbled upon this quote from known white supremacist and segragationist Bob Whitaker, according to whom 'anti-racist is code for anti-white'. His white supremacy conspiracy theory centers around the idea that multiculturalism equates to white genocide, and he was very much opposed to affirmative action. He had a prominant role in the Reagan administration, which makes me wonder what sort of influence he's had in US politics.

 

I do remember also, reading something a few years back about the prevalence of and fan worship of black men within sport. Despite these black men achieving high status in their field, this has not done anything to raise the 'value' of black men in society, and it makes no difference to race relations. So it doesn't even matter if they dominate this field. Black men do not receive any kind of societal privilege or benefit from any of this, and it's just commodification of the black body. As soon as they step off the court/field, it's back to oppression. (And, if they try to speak up about oppression... well, Colin Kaepernick, anyone?)

The UK footballer Raheem Sterling is repeatedly subject to racial abuse, when he does something like buy a car or a house, the UK tabloids are full of disparaging headlines about him - whereas his white teammates do the same and are praised by the same publications. The dominance of black men within sport doesn't carry over into the general view of black men, and they are given no real systemic power. 

And - well, I've been at uni for three years so I'm analysing everything - the commodification of black bodies in this way by higher-up white people is reminiscent of slavery, IMO. It's never sat well with me. 

@Emilie Jolie has articulated it better than I could, lol. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by homecoming

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Weezy1973 said:

There’s a difference between not allowing black people to go to Harvard because of a belief that they’re inferior to white people, and acknowledging that black people are equal to white people and therefore, all things being equal, their representation at Harvard should mimic that of the US as a whole. 

Those things are absolutely flawed in different ways. So that's a difference. 

They are similar in that they are both immoral. 

[K.K.]

10 hours ago, jspice said:

Your point? 
it would be stupid to say it doesn’t exist because that wouldn’t be true. I also said it was well-deserved. 
have you somehow caught me out??

Nope, I was just saying that the whole thread was basically trying to imply that prejudice against whites doesn’t exist when it does. ‘

Edited August 1, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
rude

[pepperbird]

On 7/30/2020 at 12:03 PM, Emilie Jolie said:

For those who flip a switch about 'anti-whiteness' because a handful more black / hispanic students may get into a highly selective school 99.9% of people will never get into anyway regardless of race, yet are perfectly fine with the above, it obviously was never about 'meritocracy' in the first place...

isn't Harvard one of the schools that got caught up in a scandal about people basically jumping the line if they had enough money?
I guess, at least there, green is the real colour that counts.

[pepperbird]

On 7/29/2020 at 1:55 PM, Weezy1973 said:

It would be interesting to see if there’s a difference between the descendants of these Asian immigrants and ones that have immigrated more recently in terms of wealth / income. 

I think there could be a lot of factors that come into play. Someone who fled the Cambodian war might be very different than someone who emigrated here from China looking for freedom and better prospects, just base don what they have been through.

Edited July 31, 2020 by pepperbird

[amaysngrace]

The day before my last day at work a black male was hired to replace me, a white woman.  I could look at it as racial discrimination but imo it was more of a gender based discrimination.  No males were let go and since rehiring only males were brought in.

My male friend says it sounds like a lawsuit and he’s probably right, I just don’t have the energy for something that I wouldn’t want to go back to anyway.

[Trail Blazer]

I haven't read all 20 pages, but I wanted to chime in briefly to say that yes, white prejudice exists.  However, I do not believe that it exists systematically (at least in the USA).  Socially, in places where there's non-white majority; absolutely.  

At the end of the day, individuals can elect to behave poorly towards each other.  The reasons for which can be motivated by many reasons, with one of the most common being to target an individual based on their race.

What is pertinent here is that whilst anyone can be the victim of prejudice or discrimination, it's deemed that the race which holds the balance of power (whites) are, by default, societally privileged.  Therefore, they cannot be the victims of institutionalized racism or prejudices.

I hear of many examples (especially in the industry I work in) of how government and society is prejudice against whites, with examples being that blacks/other minorities have been shown preferential treatment by way of lower entry scores to college and the like, compared to whites.

Whilst I can certainly understand the angst, initiatives like affirmative action exist to bridge a gap caused by a century of systematic racism and prejudice against a particular minority group.  They're intended to raise one group, not lower another.  That's an important distinction missed by many.

 

[Trail Blazer]

On 7/31/2020 at 11:29 PM, homecoming said:

Women's football (soccer) is also not that popular, and not very well-paid, and that is a sexist practice, and should be looked into, IMO.

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates, then there's no issue.  In no way, shape or form should women earn the same as men in sport if the revenue generated just isn't there. 

In fact, it really as nothing to do with sex and everything to do with economics.

[basil67]

44 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates, then there's no issue.  In no way, shape or form should women earn the same as men in sport if the revenue generated just isn't there. 

In fact, it really as nothing to do with sex and everything to do with economics.

Women's football is actually a good argument for the benefits of equality.   

Let's start by looking at why the women's footballers don't get the revenue:  Men's football has always had pride of place on the TV because that's what sport has always been like.  Because more people are familiar with it, they watch it more, which generates more revenue which means it's on TV more and packs stadiums and gets more revenue.   See the circle?  

Let's now look at Australian women's football.  The Matilda's were given salaries which enabled them able to become professional.  The men's soccer team have agreed to split more of the prize pool.   The women were given better grounds.  Better coaches.   And guess what?  Better results.   This picked up interest and they got shown on TV.   Because they were shown on TV their revenue picked up.  The stadiums started to fill up.   Which means more revenue.    The Matildas got on the radar of girls/young women and they started to play football.   Which made for even more fans and more revenue.   While I'm not familiar with NZ women's football, I understand that their women earn equal to men.  

Lack of equality in terms of pay, playing fields, visibility and coaches is what caused the lack of revenue in the first place.    Address the poor conditions and revenue increases.   With the increase in both popularity and revenue, Aus and NZ have been chosen to joint host the next FIFA women's world cup - REVENUE!  

Professional team sports are a category where the adage of 'it takes money to make money' rings very true.

Here's a link to the changes in pay and conditions for Australian women's football https://thewomensgame.com/news/in-detail-the-new-matildas-and-socceroos-pay-deal-533514#:~:text=* Tier 1 Matildas will earn,top-earning Matildas received %2455%2C000.

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by basil67

[sothereiwas]

5 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates, then there's no issue.  In no way, shape or form should women earn the same as men in sport if the revenue generated just isn't there. 

In fact, it really as nothing to do with sex and everything to do with economics.

If they want to earn the same as the non-womens sport pays, then they should play there. Most sports people refer to as "men's" sports are actually open to all. Go for it ladies. 

[homecoming]

10 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates, then there's no issue.  In no way, shape or form should women earn the same as men in sport if the revenue generated just isn't there. 

In fact, it really as nothing to do with sex and everything to do with economics.

Yeah, I agree - I wasn't really paying much attention when I wrote that, and as I mentioned before, sport isn't one of my interests. You're absolutely right - there isn't the same revenue being generated, no.

Edited August 5, 2020 by homecoming

[Prudence V]

9 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

If they want to earn the same as the non-womens sport pays, then they should play there. Most sports people refer to as "men's" sports are actually open to all. 

They’re “open to all” in theory. In practice, notsomuch. When I was at school our cricket team was captained by a girl, although cricket was a “boys’ sport”. She was just better than the boys. But she wasn’t allowed to try out for a place on the provincial team, unlike her team mates, because she was a girl. They argued that at provincial, national and international level, all the facilities (uniforms, change rooms, personnel like massage therapists, etc) were designed and provided for men, and the funds were simply not there to duplicate everything for women. 

[Prudence V]

15 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates,

It’s a “chicken and egg” thing. Women’s sport isn’t given the same exposure, sponsorship and support by the state or private sponsors, or even at school level. So it brings in less revenue. There’s been loads written about this. 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Prudence V said:

They’re “open to all” in theory. In practice, notsomuch.

So fix that in your province. 

Pro teams are typically open to any player who can play at the required level. The ladies teams exist to provide a less challenging place for ladies to play, and people who enjoy watching sports seem to enjoy watching less-that-top-notch play less than watching top notch play, and pay commensurately. I'm not a spectator sport person but I can see how that would make sense. 

[homecoming]

3 hours ago, Prudence V said:

They’re “open to all” in theory. In practice, notsomuch. When I was at school our cricket team was captained by a girl, although cricket was a “boys’ sport”. She was just better than the boys. But she wasn’t allowed to try out for a place on the provincial team, unlike her team mates, because she was a girl. They argued that at provincial, national and international level, all the facilities (uniforms, change rooms, personnel like massage therapists, etc) were designed and provided for men, and the funds were simply not there to duplicate everything for women. 

Girls are just encouraged to do something else as they get older. As a child and teen, I was very good at football (soccer) to the point that the boys in the playground would always ask me to join their team, and girls would always be impressed at my skill during PE lessons. One boy told me once that I was the best dribbler he'd ever seen, lol. But - as I got older, I just wasn't encouraged by my family. They thought it was masculine, and instead encouraged my cousin to play, and he won lots of trophies etc... and when you're young like that, there's not much you can really do, I guess. There were lots of opportunities and teams for teenage boys, but nothing for girls, so I didn't have much of a choice but to give it up. So yeah, unless you're really really supported or have access to the facilities, you're not going to get anywhere, really.

[basil67]

22 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

Unless female soccer players are being underpaid commensurate to the revenue their industry generates, then there's no issue.  In no way, shape or form should women earn the same as men in sport if the revenue generated just isn't there. 

In fact, it really as nothing to do with sex and everything to do with economics.

I replied to this yesterday but it's still pending approval due to a hyperlink.  Reposting without the link

Women's football is actually a good argument for the benefits of equality.   

Let's start by looking at why the women's footballers don't get the revenue:  Men's football has always had pride of place on the TV because that's what sport has always been like.  Because more people are familiar with it, they watch it more, which generates more revenue which means it's on TV more and packs stadiums and gets more revenue.   See the circle?  

Let's now look at Australian women's football.  The Matilda's were given salaries which enabled them able to become professional.  The men's soccer team have agreed to split more of the prize pool.   The women were given better grounds.  Better coaches.   And guess what?  Better results.   This picked up interest and they got shown on TV.   Because they were shown on TV their revenue picked up.  The stadiums started to fill up.   Which means more revenue.    The Matildas got on the radar of girls/young women and they started to play football.   Which made for even more fans and more revenue.   While I'm not familiar with NZ women's football, I understand that their women earn equal to men.  

Lack of equality in terms of pay, playing fields, visibility and coaches is what caused the lack of revenue in the first place.    Address the poor conditions and revenue increases.   With the increase in both popularity and revenue, Aus and NZ have been chosen to joint host the next FIFA women's world cup - REVENUE!  

Professional team sports are a category where the adage of 'it takes money to make money' rings very true.

[basil67]

5 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Pro teams are typically open to any player who can play at the required level. The ladies teams exist to provide a less challenging place for ladies to play, and people who enjoy watching sports seem to enjoy watching less-that-top-notch play less than watching top notch play, and pay commensurately. I'm not a spectator sport person but I can see how that would make sense. 

Men have more testosterone than women.  This gives them a physical advantage in terms of strength and speed over women.   Women don't play women because they want a less challenging pace, they play other women so that they can compete to the best of the ability in a level playing field.   Yes, until recently women have been playing at a lower skill level than men in some team sports, but now that there's more investment and opportunity in women's sports, more women are competing, getting better facilities and training and the skill level is increasing along with their popularity and revenue.    

Meanwhile, I challenge you to demonstrate how women's pro tennis players play a less challenging game than men.   Or perhaps female Olympians in their chosen sport.   

And one doesn't have to be a spectator sport person to grasp that sporty, competitive women don't choose to play other women so that they can have a less challenging game. 

 

[Trail Blazer]

1 hour ago, basil67 said:

Men have more testosterone than women.  This gives them a physical advantage in terms of strength and speed over women.   Women don't play women because they want a less challenging pace, they play other women so that they can compete to the best of the ability in a level playing field.   Yes, until recently women have been playing at a lower skill level than men in some team sports, but now that there's more investment and opportunity in women's sports, more women are competing, getting better facilities and training and the skill level is increasing along with their popularity and revenue.    

Meanwhile, I challenge you to demonstrate how women's pro tennis players play a less challenging game than men.   Or perhaps female Olympians in their chosen sport.   

And one doesn't have to be a spectator sport person to grasp that sporty, competitive women don't choose to play other women so that they can have a less challenging game. 

 

Well, to start with, women only play three sets instead of five...

[Trail Blazer]

1 hour ago, basil67 said:

I replied to this yesterday but it's still pending approval due to a hyperlink.  Reposting without the link

Women's football is actually a good argument for the benefits of equality.   

Let's start by looking at why the women's footballers don't get the revenue:  Men's football has always had pride of place on the TV because that's what sport has always been like.  Because more people are familiar with it, they watch it more, which generates more revenue which means it's on TV more and packs stadiums and gets more revenue.   See the circle?  

Let's now look at Australian women's football.  The Matilda's were given salaries which enabled them able to become professional.  The men's soccer team have agreed to split more of the prize pool.   The women were given better grounds.  Better coaches.   And guess what?  Better results.   This picked up interest and they got shown on TV.   Because they were shown on TV their revenue picked up.  The stadiums started to fill up.   Which means more revenue.    The Matildas got on the radar of girls/young women and they started to play football.   Which made for even more fans and more revenue.   While I'm not familiar with NZ women's football, I understand that their women earn equal to men.  

Lack of equality in terms of pay, playing fields, visibility and coaches is what caused the lack of revenue in the first place.    Address the poor conditions and revenue increases.   With the increase in both popularity and revenue, Aus and NZ have been chosen to joint host the next FIFA women's world cup - REVENUE!  

Professional team sports are a category where the adage of 'it takes money to make money' rings very true.

Depending on which country you're from, I agree.  The USA women's soccer team is the most successful female soccer team in history.  Their revenue generated is now equal to that of the men, but not their pay.

I will be the first person to call out inequality when I see it.  Hence, having researched and discovered that the collective bargaining agreement for women's soccer is up for renewal next year, I sincerely hope that the next CBA reflects their contribution to the sport in the States.

I believe Australia is similar to the United States in that, Soccer is not the number one sport in the country by any means, but in their respective national sides, the women's team is better than the men's by some margin.

I'm not sure what the Aussie girls earn, but I know that at least in the States, the girls earn a comfortable salary to live on and be deemed full-time professional.  So they should, given their success. 

It will be interesting to see if hosting the women's World Cup makes a difference to the Aussie girls' salaries.  If anything, the additional revenue will, at the very least, give them more leverage when it comes time for the next bargaining agreement.

 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

15 minutes ago, Trail Blazer said:

Depending on which country you're from, I agree.  The USA women's soccer team is the most successful female soccer team in history.  Their revenue generated is now equal to that of the men...

 

Uh,  what "men" ???

 

Clever, vague wording there...