Discrimination

In the big picture what/how are civil rights, besides the obvious, at home? I'd like your local cultural perspective.Please

Yea stripping away the emotion is tricky. People tend to become vested in struggle for various reasons (often completely unrelated) and even incorporate it into self identity sometimes. I think that is to be expected, and understood and even supported to some degree as often there are victims of established oppression who are dealing with moving out of it. Some of the people who need help the most from oppression might be the least useful in some ways - but also the most useful in others....... to moving forward in the best way.

But the biggest problem I've come across in this area is people are tending to broaden the term discrimination. It always had two clear meanings to me; 1. clearly identify discrete attributes from groups of attributes (eg a signal from noise) and 2. unlawful or unethical action based on bigotry. I now prefer the terms distinction and discrimination, respectively.

Quite simply it probably comes down to seeing a groups formal identity and purpose, where distinction is integral to function - its what defines a group after all. I don't think there is anything which is off limits to define a group so long as its related to the function of the group - and that function must be legal activity. Limitations on group access is an acceptable expression of their freedoms to me, and is not discrimination.

Versus discrimination, which I see as the restriction of freedom's based on a persons or groups particular attribute which have no relevance to the functions of the groups denying access.

It's just my opinion, and this might be can of worms of a topic :blink:

And it is not easy to tell what is actually happening sometimes, as things can be hidden. So to find an objective toolkit would be neat, though maybe not universally applicable.... it might be able to be close.

The first step in breaking it down is probably to stop using the word discrimination in describing the factors at play. It's like reading a cooking recipe where all the ingredients are called 'food'.

I think we'd agree the problem would have to be addressed to incorporate both arguments/viewpoints as a start. Maybe it boils down to a contrasting the intentions and impacts against something like universal human rights.

So for discrimination, perhaps a measure of intention of how much it limits someone elses behaviour!?

In simple terms;
Party A wants what? Because what?
Party B wants what? Because what?

This then can be considered against the rights of each party to be able to do want they want, as a freedom. Where is the most freedom being lost. Is one side stopping someone from doing something entirely, or stopping someone from doing something in one particular place and time in a particular way. The former seems more oppressive to me, then the later.

Say for example, a womens only gym.
The gym wants privacy for women to exercise away from men, because of the various reasons women might have to prefer exercising with only women.
So a man wants to join but cannot, because its women only. So he feels discriminated because;
1. The man wants to exercise with women, or
2. the man wants to exercise with no other men, or
3. the man just likes that particular gym, or
4. the man wants to make a point about what he thinks is discrimination.

So I'd compare them like;
1. the man can exercise with women in normal gyms, there is no restriction on his rights. But he is restricting their rights to a women only gym.
2. He could start his own gym and only allow women. But he is restricting their rights to a women only gym.
3. He can build his own gym like it. But he is restricting their rights to a women only gym.
4. Based on what grounds? The only thing is the distinction of his sex as being outlined in the gyms formal identity.

I'd call this a distinction and not discrimination. He is asking for a greater restriction on the women then the women are putting on him by creating a group for women only.

He might feel discriminated because he has been denied something, but what he is asking is a greater denial to the women IMO.

It's too easy to get caught up in trying to compare if a groups function is discriminatory or not in isolation, but the measurement of distinction as discrimination needs to be taken in the larger context of society and the freedom's any determination of legality or illegality would have in that broader sense.

Though it does not address the 'feelings' of those people who might feel left out of something they want to participate in, I don't think its realistic to determine law around how people might feel, as I fear that would breed a culture of the victim mentality. It does not though mean we cannot understand and support those who are injured, they have important stories and often the most important information is buried in the shadows.

I happen to be someone who was assigned a gender at birth that was different from my brain's assessment of my gender, aka transgender, and I used to identify as such. Because I was persecuted for that quality of my being, I had to take that quality and make it an asset rather than a liability, so trans woman became my identity. But when that happened, it shielded me from the hurt aimed at me, but I became outraged for others who were slighted for having the quality of being transgender, and thus it was still poisoning me by proxy. All that anger... I haven't dealt with real trans discrimination for a few years now (I think it was 2010), but as my disabilities become more and more pronounced, I find myself having to deal with ableism instead.

But I think the hardest part of discrimination is when we let it cause us to redefine what we are on its terms. When I take the quality of being transgender, or the quality of being disabled, or the quality of being asexual, and contort those qualities into internal beliefs about who or what I am - when I convince myself that that is my identity - that's when the ego gets involved. And the ego can be irrational, and is a wiz at using righteous indignation to get what it wants. But sometimes it ends up driving people away, when what was needed was calm. I've heard people say that "it's not my responsibility to fully educate you clueless people at the drop of a hat about my struggles just because you feel entitled to it", or something similar, and I think that is complete and absolute horse-crap. That's what we say when our egos are bruised and just want to lash out.

Without communication, we will never have allies in our struggles. This is why I am becoming more and more wary of identity politics, because I've been on both sides of the fence, and all too often when we take that quality of being (insert minority here) and make it our IDENTITY, our egos will always demand validation of that identity. And if I'm busy making demands of you, I don't have the time or clearness of mind to find ways to relate to you why I'm feeling the way I'm feeling in a way that you can understand. The term "butthurt" is one that I do not use, but many have called me such in the past. How can I blame them if I was getting angry at them rather than educating them?

Just some stuff off the top of my head, having difficulty thinking tonight.

Identity politics is a new thing so I cannot fully blame the movement for not being sure what it itself wants. However, I do think that is the fundamental issue with many of its current protests. I am a black, cisgendered, heterosexual male so I don't have a say in many of these issues myself. I acknowledge the privilege I have for not having to deal with transphobia or homophobia. However from my experience really trying to learn the lessons of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, I really try to study protesting in and of itself. To me, there are two major "different methods" in protesting:

1. The coalition building, aka Martin Luther King Jr., style of protesting. MLK was very laser focused on policy change because he wanted to rid of the Jim Crow laws. This required appealing to government to get this change to happen. To get to that point, he needed to build coalitions among black people and among allies as well. So it was easy for anybody who agreed with his stances to join him because he knew if he gained a national critical mass he can get the laws to change. The most important part of this method is knowing the definitive goals you want to achieve. The drawback though, as many people of color point out, is that this method isn't really empowering of black people. MLK only got what he want because LBJ and white liberals gave him what he wished in order to look good politically.

2. The self-actualizing, aka Malcolm X, style of protesting. This method of protesting can focus on policy change but it is more focused on raw emotion. This style is more about letting the particular harm group stand up and vent out their frustration/tell their stories in the public sphere. You can probably see why this style sort of discourages allies from joining. It is because when this method is employed the intent is the empower the disadvantaged group by giving them a voice in a society where they rarely have a chance to express themselves. Because this method tends to be more emotion/personal driven, the goal of it is to form resistance more than anything. Some Malcolm X quotes show this:

"No, we are not anti-white. But we don't have time for the white man. The white man is on top already, the white man is the boss already... He has first-class citizenship already. So you are wasting your time talking to the white man. We are working on our own people." -Malcolm X

"I believe in the brotherhood of all men, but I don't believe in wasting brotherhood on anyone who doesn't want to practice it with me. Brotherhood is a two-way street." -Malcolm X

The intent is not to coalition build, but rather show the problems inherent in the system.


My issue with identity politics right now is that some of the adherents don't know whether or not they want to employ the first or second method. Sometimes they even try to combine the tactics of the second while expecting to get the results of the first which isn't going to happen. If you are pushing away (or worse demonizing) allies, you cannot expect to change laws or anything else because embracing those allies is the only way to get the critical mass to form change. Neither method is superior to the other, the first method can change laws but the second method empowers the voice of those being oppressed. The main thing is though that you have to fully commit to one or the other because the two cannot coexist.

You can say though that the current movements such as the #BlackLivesMatter movement and others are very decentralized so you cannot expect the kind of uniformity I mention. This is a fair point but I've noticed particular protesters try to do both. For example, at my college there was a recent controversy where protesters went into our library protesting police brutality and then aggressively tried to force random students who were studying to join them. If the students didn't immediately get up and join the protest, they were shouted at, called names, called bigots, etc. If you are employing such tactics don't expect to create allies or to have the chance to make legal changes. I don't judge them for protesting in that way, but I judge them for expecting that they would gain allies when their methods completely go against encouraging others to become allies. You don't demonize those who want to remain neutral (or who don't want to protest at that particular time).

You make some very good points. It reminds me of one person who was dictating how and how not to be a trans-ally, yet also wearing a jacket with the slogan "Die Cis Scum" on it. Definitely mixed messages being sent there, probably not helpful.

Gwinn wrote: I do agree with Edan--only through education, and therefore understanding and compassion, can we really understand what our neighbors are going through. Even if a group doesn't want help to fight for their cause, it would most likely benefit them to have an educational discussion and politely decline the help, rather than alienating potential friends or allies.

Yes, and with the act of listening works the best in creating trust as well as learning about a situation in order to gain empathy.

Perhaps it is my training, but I was taught to differentiate between the words help and support. Perhaps it fits in with this discussion. To not be a member of said group (i.e. not lgbtq, black, etc.) one cannot help if they have not truly experienced the same things as members of the group. To support someone is to build someone up and give them a voice of their own. Sometimes help is needed while other times support is good to give.

Seumic wrote:

Gwinn wrote: I do agree with Edan--only through education, and therefore understanding and compassion, can we really understand what our neighbors are going through. Even if a group doesn't want help to fight for their cause, it would most likely benefit them to have an educational discussion and politely decline the help, rather than alienating potential friends or allies.

Yes, and with the act of listening works the best in creating trust as well as learning about a situation in order to gain empathy.

Perhaps it is my training, but I was taught to differentiate between the words help and support. Perhaps it fits in with this discussion. To not be a member of said group (i.e. not lgbtq, black, etc.) one cannot help if they have not truly experienced the same things as members of the group. To support someone is to build someone up and give them a voice of their own. Sometimes help is needed while other times support is good to give.

Good point.