racial and sexual inequality

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Kragen Sitaker wrote:
> Brad writes:
> > [John Klassa writes:]
> > > It so happens that our CEO is an Indian male (Krish Prabhu).  While it's
> > > true that everyone else between me and him is a white male, he (at least)
> > > isn't. :-)
> > 
> > Wow!  Sounds like your organization is an exception to the rule.  I am sure
> > you realize how rare this really is.
> > 
> > It is unusual.  Minority CEOs are a rare find.
 
> Two things to remember:

> - as he said, everyone between him and the CEO is a white guy, so it's not
>   *that* much of an exception;

Very true.

> - Indian people are a minority in the US, but they are probably a plurality
>   worldwide.  Alcatel, where John works, is a worldwide company.

Ahh...good point.  Actually, the extra reading that I have been doing on AA
this week has indicated that it is really most important and most necessary
for blacks.  A quote from my favorite site:
http://www.socialpsychology.org/affirm.htm

 "To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to
  deny the historical and social reality that Black people face."


Blacks in the USA really do have a unique situation in this respect.  After
all, the worse Asian Americans ever got were prison camps.  Blacks were
enslaved for a good 200 years or so.  (Counting colonial times..)
 
> > So if I don't own an house or have kids (the two of the above I don't have),
> > I don't count?  What right do you have to sit on your high horse because you
> > happen to own a home and have kids?
 
> I don't think he was sitting on his high horse at all.  I think he was
> just saying that white men in that situation are likely to have real
> things to be pissed off about already.
 
> > You really need to rethink the way you make assumptions about people.
> 
> I think this was uncalled for.

I misunderstood completely what he was saying.

 
> BTW, part of this is also sort of presenting a skewed view of your life;
> while you are married and don't have much income, you're also an academic,
> which means you don't have quite the same worries [job insecurities, no
> career path] that $6-an-hour fast-food workers have, even though you have
> the same income level.

You have a point.  However, you know that my career path looks pretty bleak,
regardless.  I suppose one could argue that's self imposed.  But, I really
could end up working as a fast-food worker RSN.  :(

My SO's career path *is* really bleak, even though she *does* have a
Master's because she is in a field that doesn't tend to have many jobs and
those jobs tend to pay very little when they do exist.

Being a radical feminist isn't exactly a lucrative career these days.  :)

> > > At heart, AA still amounts to government-backed discrimination.
> > 
> > No, it doesn't.  See myth #7 at http://www.socialpsychology.org/affirm.htm
 
> I would like to note that the issue here is more one of definitions than
> factual disagreement.

I agree.
 
> For the record, I think AA is discrimination by the dictionary
> definition, but I also think it is not wrong.

Yes.  By some dictionary definitions.

>  I don't think it's rooted in racism the way certain other kinds of
> discrimination is, and, in fact, it combats racism by bringing people of
> different "races" and genders together.

Exactly!  :)

> Most importantly, it doesn't result in people being excluded from
> opportunity the way racist hiring and admissions policies do.

Exactly.  As the "myth" states, it is built for inclusion.
 

> I appreciate John Klassa's polite response to being flamed, and I hope
> Brad apologizes for flying off the handle like that.

I hope my apology is reasonable.  See other post for it.

I may be particularly sensitive to issues of "whether I have worries or not"
because I have more than the canonical amount right now.  My apologies if
that, instead of what Mr. Klassa said, was the catalyst for the flame.

-- 
         -  bkuhn@ebb.org  -  Bradley M. Kuhn  -  bkuhn@gnu.org  -
                          http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn