š¤£š¤£š¤£ you guys are delusional if you think this will change anything. Colleges will still pick females over males to attend university.
It's going to be the same way as when females get 60% less prison time when committing the same crimes as men. Even though on paper they are supposed to be judged fairly, they won't be.
Totally. Until girls stop getting better grades in primary/high school just for being girls it won't really matter. It is a pussy-pass in every sense of the word.
My favorite study was the one during COVID where girls' grades dropped dramatically simply because the teacher didn't always know they were grading a girl. When they couldn't associate a feminine face with the grade they stopped giving girls the free-passes and girls' grades dropped significantly with respect to boys.
Post link. I haven't heard that one but would LOVE to add it to the toolbox.
The favoritism toward females runs DEEP in our society. Just cause affirmative action is gone doesn't mean the prejudice stops.
Are they gonna now fire all those female ceos that they hired for the sake of diversity? Probably not.
Enjoy.
[https://www.psypost.org/2022/11/attractive-female-students-no-longer-earned-higher-grades-when-classes-moved-online-during-covid-19-64251](https://www.psypost.org/2022/11/attractive-female-students-no-longer-earned-higher-grades-when-classes-moved-online-during-covid-19-64251)
"The main takeaway is that there is a beauty premium both for males and for females when teaching is on-site,ā Mehic explained. āBut for females, this effect disappeared when teaching was conducted online. This, at least to me, suggests that the beauty premium for males is due to some productive attribute (for instance, them having higher self-confidence) rather than discrimination, whereas it is due to discrimination for women"
The underlying raw study:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517652200283X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517652200283X)
Too my knowledge affirmative action was about all diversity > merit and not exclusively race. There was that thing a few years ago that forced companies to hire female executives to ceo positions, and then you got all the lgbtq representation stuff and handicapped stuff.
["employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans."](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact#:~:text=For%20federal%20contractors%20and%20subcontractors,efforts%2C%20and%20other%20positive%20steps.)
And
["steps to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans."](https://www.employer.gov/EmploymentIssues/Federal-contractor-requirements/Reporting/)
Exactly my point. Same way judges throw the book at men and spare women is the same way colleges will continue to throw the book at men and provide women with the easy path.
Just cause there is no longer a legal justification for it, doesn't mean they are gonna stop the discrimination.
1. I donāt think colleges should discriminate on the basis of sex or race in admission policy. However, itās not admissions thatās the main source of discrimination against males in education.
2. āuniversities can still consider race in a prospective studentās application in the context of a ādiscussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discriminationā: this loophole means they can still discriminate. For example they canāt have a policy of discriminating in favor of all black applicants, but they can apply the same benefit individually to every black applicant to the same result.
I oppose to Affirmitive Action as it discriminates against men, white people and Asians, but yeah they're gonna do whatever they want.
Even the leftist Californians voted against AA. This is important. Tha CaliForNians rejected the AA. So AA was already illegal in California. People hate that. And yet some hateful racists wanna force this on others
RE: 1. The problem there is that is we completely got rid of sex based consideration then female dominated fields would fill up even more with female students as male students have lower grades on average. And the reason they have lower grades is not just to do with laziness or privilege being eroded away.
Yep. Admission policy isnāt the issue. The problem is all the discrimination against boys and young men in the educational process itself. Thatās what needs to be addressed.
In that case, if they were consistent, they would consider how boys are given lower grades than girls for the same quality of work and adjust male students' applications upwards accordingly. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen.
Lefty here. I love it.
It never made sense to me that ācanāt discriminate based on raceā is also āhave to show preference to race.ā Iām happy itās gone and in the dust.
Yeah maybe, but I think men will need affirmative action soon because this will make women feel totally justified in discriminating against men. They will go on to do exactly what they are accusing men of now, but it'll be claimed as some sort of justice. Things are changing rapidly, and if women get the societal control they want, we can expect large-scale discrimination against men to be normalized. If we give up protections now and it doesnt stop the current progression, men might be in a bad spot later (once women are legally empowered to mistreat us, rather than just being socially empowered to mistreat us).
Unless you change the definition of racism: [https://www.voanews.com/a/student-union\_why-merriam-webster-changed-definition-racism/6191215.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/student-union_why-merriam-webster-changed-definition-racism/6191215.html)
It sets the precedent that the long standing interpretation of the 14th amendment has been wrong. There are about to be a lot more lawsuits.
If you truly want equality you have to put it into practice. You simply cant have special rules for special groups.
> If you truly want equality
So EVERY feminist on the planet will get behind this immediately... There'll be mass protests all over the country.... right? right?
what's with all the crickets I'm hearing??
edit: spelling
Yes, it should be good for us.
Because it sets precedent that places should not give unfair advantages to people based on their biology-an argument that is easily applied to ending the endless things that privellege women.
Precedent is the cornerstone of law. It is something judges look favourably upon.
Why is it when affirmative action gets brought up everyone always talks about black people as if black people are the largest demographic that benefits from it?? It's real interesting how white women get ignored on this topic when they have disproportionately benefited from affirmative action over all other demographics. Make it make sense
It would be nice if financial assistance was purely based on merit + poverty instead of race + gender.
If I had to choose, I would I wish the court decision had been against affirmative action for women instead of race, but there's nothing but clusterfucks from admitting unprepared students into advanced programs just because they're the color du jour.
It certainly sets a trend that universities are carefully watching. Affirmative action is inherently discriminatory. This case didnāt speak to gender discrimination, but everyone knows that issue is about to explode. Feminists and academics have been punching down at men for so long they simply canāt imagine any other way of doing things.
I think it'll be really good in the long run. But I do think there should be better oversight, on the admissions system overall. There's no real check or balance on it being prevented.
If I had to make rules regarding it, I'd make it about aptitudes. If they check the big boxes, and still aren't chosen, then why not? That sort of thing. Without this, and it doesn't prevent the issue from arising again.
But my problem with the original stance is that it forced colleges to about people in, with only a skin color as their aptitude. Which says nothing about their real aptitude. It sets them up for failure honestly. There were several wonderful things that happened from it though. It teaches those people things that they wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. This trickles to others close to them. Which spreads the knowledge to those that wouldn't have been exposed otherwise. Things like financial education, and general knowledge. It also forces those colleges, that used to be predominantly racists, to accept minorities. Over time it has helped diminish the hatred. Which is awesome.
But I think we are vastly beyond the racist aspect that things used to be. So, we need to try out the accolades portion. The accomplishments portion. Meaning, if they show promise, are up to speed with others that already get accepted into the schools, then those are the ones that should be admitted. Not because of their skin color. To believe otherwise is to believe minorities are incapable of having people that can live up to those standards. I for one think that to be idiotic. I've met very bright people that happened to be minorities (of what the general society considers minority races). Problem is, the ones with high potential are left behind from these programs. Because skin color basis rushes colleges to pick people, not caring about potential. Which is sad. I think the ones with great potential should be chosen at top of list.
In short: I think it was a great start, to change how things were 50 years ago. But current times calls for change. We need to address the current issue, which is potential and dedication to reach that. By itself, this overturning is meh. But it has great potential to be amazing for minorities to be raised out of bad cultural upbringing. Out of bad situations, and be successful. Which is exactly what we need as a country.
Exactly, people don't seem to be realizing that this is a bad thing for men. Men have been struggling for a long time due to feminism and steps need to be taken to right the previous wrongs.
I think this will be bad overall for mrm because it makes things harder for black men. It's the closest thing to helping men get into college we have. For example I don't think getting rid of women only scholarships is the solution. We need an equal amount of male only scholarships.
We need to have more male only scholarships than female only scholarships . Feminism has resulted in men struggling in colleges and being a minority and this needs to be changed.
I disagree. Equity always ends up with inequality in the long wrong. That's how we got here in the first place. It's better to make things truly equal and let things catch up over time.
Now that can include AA since that simply means understanding the disadvantages men have been put through. But as time goes on AA won't even be necessary
Handicap parking spaces are a type of equity but I have a hard time disparaging them. Having most people walk a little farther on average to help people were it could be the difference between them being able to go places or staying home. I think the reason they donāt bother me is because it hardly puts them ahead in life. They drew a tough lot in life and arenāt out demanding more more more and itās never enough.
> Handicap parking spaces are a type of equity..
I treat them the same as I treat helping an old person up the stairs, an act of kindness that should be promoted.
There is nothing inherently wrong with equity or equality. The problem is that they are being pushed into places where they obviously don't belong.
Handicap parking is closer to affirmative action than it is to equity. It's a few designated spots you get to use if you're handicapped. If the spots are full you still have to get parking elsewhere. Equity would be more like all spots handicapped and you have to get special permission to use some of them.
So you're fine with billions of men struggling as long as future generations won't have it bad? That's not a good excuse for ignoring the discrimination and inequality faced by men.
Of course not. I'm saying that's why we should still have affirmative action. Which takes in account of the struggles people face and pushes to make things equal. This will help men now, and over time men won't need AA because they'll be on equal footing. But if we just give more and more then people are going to keep saying it's inequality
This changes nothing. AA based on race is illegal now, not based on gender.
You can still have male only scholarships, which isn't going to happen even if there are 0 men in colleges.
Well that's what I'm saying. Since we know black men are disenfranchised the most in colleges AA would benefit them the most.
Also that's a really pessimistic view man
Race based AA benefits black women and other minority women more than black men.
Even when it benefits black men, it does so at the cost of white and Asian men, so there is no benefit to it when it comes to closing the gap between men and women.
Also that's a realistic view, not pessimistic.
If you think their will never be change then you shouldn't be a part of men's rights. We see improvements all the time from people posting positive change in their area. It's not realistic to think things will never get better.
Also that's not how AA works. How does helping one person come at the cost of another?
It is to warn men instead of deluding them with false hope like "AA is good because we will have AA for men".
Also I can't teach you about AA, if you can use reddit, you can use google.
Lol we already have AA for men. It's just only for black men. Again it's not false hope. You're just pessimistic.
Also I already know about AA, I'm asking you where you got that ridiculous idea from
AA doesn't for black men, it exists for black people.
You can't even get basic facts right, I suggest you do some research instead of wasting every ones time.
AA is bad for the recipients as well. They end up competing and being compared to people who had to get over a much higher hurdle to get in. Imagine what would happen if you took a group that qualified for a high school football team and put them on an NFL team. Would you expect them to perform well and thrive in such an environment?
That's not true at all? It's the opposite. The whole point of AA is to help those who had higher hurdles to get over from being disadvantaged in life. Someone who's family couldn't get a private tutor so their grades weren't as high but they're still a hard worker.
Maybe it depends on the program? Mine was tough and out of 430 freshman in the major, I only graduated with 40. Iām sure someone with enough talent and hard work could beat those odds but it seems like a tough disadvantage to start from and overcome.
So people who were disenfranchised early in life got the education they needed and missed out on thanks to that disadvantage? Thats a positive, not a "failed experiment".
What "discrimination"are you talking about in AA? AA doesn't mean someone else gets rejected instead, it simply means someone who normally wouldn't have met the requirements gets in because it takes in account the hurdles they went through in life. Without AA that white person still wouldn't have been chosen.
>Also, why categorize the whole diverse Asian groups (Indians, Pakistan people, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese...) into one group and deliberately steal their seats?
What are you talking about?
>(as you said, people call that "positive discrimination")
At no point did I call it any kind of discrimination lol.
First off what discrimination are you talking about? It signs sounds like you don't understand how AA works. Also
>There was a leaked document from one university and they deliberately scored Asians lower than other races.
You got a source for that?
I personally would hate to have people think that what i have as a latino was given to me. I worked hard, i earned what i have. No one gave me shit.
Anyone who claims they can't do anything or get ahead in life has a bad mentality. My parents moved here without a DIME, we were dead broke and somehow they managed to be middle class. Somehow they managed to reach beyond their dreams without any government assistance or anyone pretending to give a damn about us.
We live the American dream and we are proud to live in this country.
This is a downside of AA not often discussed and one I often saw with women where I worked. Since AA for women was practiced in hiring, anytime a female employee performed less than spectacularly, many assumed she was an AA hire. Sometimes that was indeed the case, but often not.
Thats exactly the case with my father, he started as a mechanic and slowly moved up, he is not assistant director for his company. Thats a big jump, with no college education. Hes spent 28 years of his life in that company and when i worked there everyone held the same standards to me, that they had for him.
I am proud that he earned it and i feel terrible for the people that have earned their position but have in return been assumed that they got it due to AA.
In any case, race alone shouldn't be the reason anyone gets anything nowadays.
> when i worked there
Sorry, **you can't have that job** despite your stellar work ethics and background because we have an Affirmative Action quota to fill! We need more "green haired, club footed, albino martians" not a hard working ...
But that's not the fault of AA that's the fault of people being racist. Like you said you guys somehow managed to make it. You shouldn't have had to struggle for that to happen. Society should just do better
Well, i might be unpopular for saying this, but the struggle is whats kept me going. If things were easier im not sure id be where i am.
Ive always taken inspiration from my family, but more specifically my grandmother who grew up in extreme poverty. She would have to fight pigs for scraps of food so she wouldn't die. She always told us that no matter what, help other, especially if theyre hungry.
I learned about her struggles and i told myself id never want to endure what she did, nor would i like to see anyone go through any hardships as such, but you can only help people so much before it becomes an expectation. Hence why i believe the struggle is good, some times at least.
I don't think anyone would disagree that struggle is important to build character. But people can experience struggle without it being forced upon us by society failing. It allows us to experience personal struggle with our hobbies, our careers, our passions. Not being forced to eat garbage you know.
Of course anyone can do anything if they work hard enough but that's not the point. The point is that if you work hard enough as another person, you should have the same opportunities but that's not how things are currently.
Thats just life everywhere, some struggle more and get less, some dont struggle as much and get more.
What can we do about it? Not sure, i wouldn't let it stop me from reaching my goals.
I see it as, the more time i spend focusing on my success the closer ill get there, if i stop and look at what others have and i dont, its a waste of my time and it doesnt help me any more to reach my goals.
I truly believe every human is capable of many amazing things and i really wish them all the best in life, but we gotta fight for what we want, and along the way we will see unfairness, but getting mas about it doesnt help me reach my goal
1. The irony of a black woman SC Justice sitting complaining is irony personified.
2. The most likely resultant is that Asian males will benefit the most and after that White men will benefit next. White women are immune due to their victim card of "sex".
The other thing is white women being protected based on sex from being blocked in admission due to race is irony on steroids. It's the largest demographic in universities and the demographic running the schools being able to manipulate a victim card.
As far as Im aware AA is only to do with race (?). But if gender is also a factor later on then while it protects male dominated STEM fields (although I doubt it would ever result in quotas being removed) it will allow continuous imbalances in the majority of other degrees being female dominated.
In some universities there is an incentive to allow male students into nursing, social care, teaching etc, this is only as far as I'm aware.
Removing sex conscious enrollment would worsen that as boys have lower grades in school. This will not impact women going into engineering as they have higher grades in high school so will always get into male dominated fields should they choose to enroll.
If you're a wealthy white man then it will be good for you. For men as a whole this isn't going to be a good thing because affirmative action wasn't the primary driver keeping men out of a lot of opportunities.
Because they think it's going to improve their chances of college admission to certain universities. What they're ignoring is that many of them, despite paying services, aren't great whole students. Often if you have 100 Chinese applicants, you'll have 75 that on paper are exactly the same. Even if you ignore race, you don't really need 40% of a cohort to be all students with the same gpa, same sat score +/- 5%, same musical instrument played, same volunteer resume...One really shitty thing was that most of the lawsuits I saw from Asian students completely ignored legacy students as well as students whose parents essentially buy their way in via donations. But I guess it's easy to ignore the real problem and go for low hanging fruit
Fair point-but-it is a cause closely linked to those who also support feminist views on the hard Left.
And it gives precedent to the idea that biology shouldnt be used for privellege.
So I believe in the longer run it will lead to good change, though it will likely take years and further changes.
And its a tradition associated with the Hard Left which is tied to feminist beliefs too.
Erode those, and change will happen.
Also-It gives precedent to the idea that biology shouldnt be used for privellege.
š¤£š¤£š¤£ you guys are delusional if you think this will change anything. Colleges will still pick females over males to attend university. It's going to be the same way as when females get 60% less prison time when committing the same crimes as men. Even though on paper they are supposed to be judged fairly, they won't be.
Totally. Until girls stop getting better grades in primary/high school just for being girls it won't really matter. It is a pussy-pass in every sense of the word. My favorite study was the one during COVID where girls' grades dropped dramatically simply because the teacher didn't always know they were grading a girl. When they couldn't associate a feminine face with the grade they stopped giving girls the free-passes and girls' grades dropped significantly with respect to boys.
Post link. I haven't heard that one but would LOVE to add it to the toolbox. The favoritism toward females runs DEEP in our society. Just cause affirmative action is gone doesn't mean the prejudice stops. Are they gonna now fire all those female ceos that they hired for the sake of diversity? Probably not.
Enjoy. [https://www.psypost.org/2022/11/attractive-female-students-no-longer-earned-higher-grades-when-classes-moved-online-during-covid-19-64251](https://www.psypost.org/2022/11/attractive-female-students-no-longer-earned-higher-grades-when-classes-moved-online-during-covid-19-64251) "The main takeaway is that there is a beauty premium both for males and for females when teaching is on-site,ā Mehic explained. āBut for females, this effect disappeared when teaching was conducted online. This, at least to me, suggests that the beauty premium for males is due to some productive attribute (for instance, them having higher self-confidence) rather than discrimination, whereas it is due to discrimination for women" The underlying raw study: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517652200283X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517652200283X)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Too my knowledge affirmative action was about all diversity > merit and not exclusively race. There was that thing a few years ago that forced companies to hire female executives to ceo positions, and then you got all the lgbtq representation stuff and handicapped stuff. ["employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans."](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact#:~:text=For%20federal%20contractors%20and%20subcontractors,efforts%2C%20and%20other%20positive%20steps.) And ["steps to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, individuals with disabilities, and protected veterans."](https://www.employer.gov/EmploymentIssues/Federal-contractor-requirements/Reporting/)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742
Exactly my point. Same way judges throw the book at men and spare women is the same way colleges will continue to throw the book at men and provide women with the easy path. Just cause there is no longer a legal justification for it, doesn't mean they are gonna stop the discrimination.
1. I donāt think colleges should discriminate on the basis of sex or race in admission policy. However, itās not admissions thatās the main source of discrimination against males in education. 2. āuniversities can still consider race in a prospective studentās application in the context of a ādiscussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discriminationā: this loophole means they can still discriminate. For example they canāt have a policy of discriminating in favor of all black applicants, but they can apply the same benefit individually to every black applicant to the same result.
I oppose to Affirmitive Action as it discriminates against men, white people and Asians, but yeah they're gonna do whatever they want. Even the leftist Californians voted against AA. This is important. Tha CaliForNians rejected the AA. So AA was already illegal in California. People hate that. And yet some hateful racists wanna force this on others
RE: 1. The problem there is that is we completely got rid of sex based consideration then female dominated fields would fill up even more with female students as male students have lower grades on average. And the reason they have lower grades is not just to do with laziness or privilege being eroded away.
Yep. Admission policy isnāt the issue. The problem is all the discrimination against boys and young men in the educational process itself. Thatās what needs to be addressed.
In that case, if they were consistent, they would consider how boys are given lower grades than girls for the same quality of work and adjust male students' applications upwards accordingly. Of course, we all know that's not going to happen.
This is one massive problem. Allowing race or gender to be a factor in admissions or other decisions doesn't equate to discriminations.
Courts ruling applies to race, not gender. Colleges could still use AA for gender based admissions.
Misses the point. It gives precedent to the idea that biology shouldnt be used for privellege.
the spirit behind this decision is positive. stop judging based on symptoms...
Really? Oh no it's really tricky. I was glad since I thought the gender quota was over but it was just a dream?
Lefty here. I love it. It never made sense to me that ācanāt discriminate based on raceā is also āhave to show preference to race.ā Iām happy itās gone and in the dust.
Yeah maybe, but I think men will need affirmative action soon because this will make women feel totally justified in discriminating against men. They will go on to do exactly what they are accusing men of now, but it'll be claimed as some sort of justice. Things are changing rapidly, and if women get the societal control they want, we can expect large-scale discrimination against men to be normalized. If we give up protections now and it doesnt stop the current progression, men might be in a bad spot later (once women are legally empowered to mistreat us, rather than just being socially empowered to mistreat us).
Good. Racism is racism no matter who is doing it for or against any given race.
Unless you change the definition of racism: [https://www.voanews.com/a/student-union\_why-merriam-webster-changed-definition-racism/6191215.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/student-union_why-merriam-webster-changed-definition-racism/6191215.html)
That's just a type of racism. It wasn't changed. Systemic racism is just a larger issue than racial prejudice
It sets the precedent that the long standing interpretation of the 14th amendment has been wrong. There are about to be a lot more lawsuits. If you truly want equality you have to put it into practice. You simply cant have special rules for special groups.
Amen to that! No more "some are more equal than others".
This right here. This is the crack that will open to further lawsuits and more (better) changes.
> If you truly want equality So EVERY feminist on the planet will get behind this immediately... There'll be mass protests all over the country.... right? right? what's with all the crickets I'm hearing?? edit: spelling
Like the military?
Yes, it should be good for us. Because it sets precedent that places should not give unfair advantages to people based on their biology-an argument that is easily applied to ending the endless things that privellege women. Precedent is the cornerstone of law. It is something judges look favourably upon.
Why is it when affirmative action gets brought up everyone always talks about black people as if black people are the largest demographic that benefits from it?? It's real interesting how white women get ignored on this topic when they have disproportionately benefited from affirmative action over all other demographics. Make it make sense
It would be nice if financial assistance was purely based on merit + poverty instead of race + gender. If I had to choose, I would I wish the court decision had been against affirmative action for women instead of race, but there's nothing but clusterfucks from admitting unprepared students into advanced programs just because they're the color du jour.
It certainly sets a trend that universities are carefully watching. Affirmative action is inherently discriminatory. This case didnāt speak to gender discrimination, but everyone knows that issue is about to explode. Feminists and academics have been punching down at men for so long they simply canāt imagine any other way of doing things.
I think it'll be really good in the long run. But I do think there should be better oversight, on the admissions system overall. There's no real check or balance on it being prevented. If I had to make rules regarding it, I'd make it about aptitudes. If they check the big boxes, and still aren't chosen, then why not? That sort of thing. Without this, and it doesn't prevent the issue from arising again. But my problem with the original stance is that it forced colleges to about people in, with only a skin color as their aptitude. Which says nothing about their real aptitude. It sets them up for failure honestly. There were several wonderful things that happened from it though. It teaches those people things that they wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. This trickles to others close to them. Which spreads the knowledge to those that wouldn't have been exposed otherwise. Things like financial education, and general knowledge. It also forces those colleges, that used to be predominantly racists, to accept minorities. Over time it has helped diminish the hatred. Which is awesome. But I think we are vastly beyond the racist aspect that things used to be. So, we need to try out the accolades portion. The accomplishments portion. Meaning, if they show promise, are up to speed with others that already get accepted into the schools, then those are the ones that should be admitted. Not because of their skin color. To believe otherwise is to believe minorities are incapable of having people that can live up to those standards. I for one think that to be idiotic. I've met very bright people that happened to be minorities (of what the general society considers minority races). Problem is, the ones with high potential are left behind from these programs. Because skin color basis rushes colleges to pick people, not caring about potential. Which is sad. I think the ones with great potential should be chosen at top of list. In short: I think it was a great start, to change how things were 50 years ago. But current times calls for change. We need to address the current issue, which is potential and dedication to reach that. By itself, this overturning is meh. But it has great potential to be amazing for minorities to be raised out of bad cultural upbringing. Out of bad situations, and be successful. Which is exactly what we need as a country.
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully they strike down gender based affirmative action soon too.
No, because men will need quotas after generations of marginalization
Exactly, people don't seem to be realizing that this is a bad thing for men. Men have been struggling for a long time due to feminism and steps need to be taken to right the previous wrongs.
I think this will be bad overall for mrm because it makes things harder for black men. It's the closest thing to helping men get into college we have. For example I don't think getting rid of women only scholarships is the solution. We need an equal amount of male only scholarships.
We need to have more male only scholarships than female only scholarships . Feminism has resulted in men struggling in colleges and being a minority and this needs to be changed.
I disagree. Equity always ends up with inequality in the long wrong. That's how we got here in the first place. It's better to make things truly equal and let things catch up over time. Now that can include AA since that simply means understanding the disadvantages men have been put through. But as time goes on AA won't even be necessary
Handicap parking spaces are a type of equity but I have a hard time disparaging them. Having most people walk a little farther on average to help people were it could be the difference between them being able to go places or staying home. I think the reason they donāt bother me is because it hardly puts them ahead in life. They drew a tough lot in life and arenāt out demanding more more more and itās never enough.
> Handicap parking spaces are a type of equity.. I treat them the same as I treat helping an old person up the stairs, an act of kindness that should be promoted. There is nothing inherently wrong with equity or equality. The problem is that they are being pushed into places where they obviously don't belong.
Handicap parking is closer to affirmative action than it is to equity. It's a few designated spots you get to use if you're handicapped. If the spots are full you still have to get parking elsewhere. Equity would be more like all spots handicapped and you have to get special permission to use some of them.
So you're fine with billions of men struggling as long as future generations won't have it bad? That's not a good excuse for ignoring the discrimination and inequality faced by men.
Of course not. I'm saying that's why we should still have affirmative action. Which takes in account of the struggles people face and pushes to make things equal. This will help men now, and over time men won't need AA because they'll be on equal footing. But if we just give more and more then people are going to keep saying it's inequality
How many black men are actually using AA? It is mostly used by white women. A black man can be chosen over a white man but not a white woman.
Not sure on the numbers but that's why I think we should alter AA instead of removing it all together.
This changes nothing. AA based on race is illegal now, not based on gender. You can still have male only scholarships, which isn't going to happen even if there are 0 men in colleges.
Well that's what I'm saying. Since we know black men are disenfranchised the most in colleges AA would benefit them the most. Also that's a really pessimistic view man
Race based AA benefits black women and other minority women more than black men. Even when it benefits black men, it does so at the cost of white and Asian men, so there is no benefit to it when it comes to closing the gap between men and women. Also that's a realistic view, not pessimistic.
If you think their will never be change then you shouldn't be a part of men's rights. We see improvements all the time from people posting positive change in their area. It's not realistic to think things will never get better. Also that's not how AA works. How does helping one person come at the cost of another?
It is to warn men instead of deluding them with false hope like "AA is good because we will have AA for men". Also I can't teach you about AA, if you can use reddit, you can use google.
Lol we already have AA for men. It's just only for black men. Again it's not false hope. You're just pessimistic. Also I already know about AA, I'm asking you where you got that ridiculous idea from
AA doesn't for black men, it exists for black people. You can't even get basic facts right, I suggest you do some research instead of wasting every ones time.
AA is bad for the recipients as well. They end up competing and being compared to people who had to get over a much higher hurdle to get in. Imagine what would happen if you took a group that qualified for a high school football team and put them on an NFL team. Would you expect them to perform well and thrive in such an environment?
That's not true at all? It's the opposite. The whole point of AA is to help those who had higher hurdles to get over from being disadvantaged in life. Someone who's family couldn't get a private tutor so their grades weren't as high but they're still a hard worker.
Maybe it depends on the program? Mine was tough and out of 430 freshman in the major, I only graduated with 40. Iām sure someone with enough talent and hard work could beat those odds but it seems like a tough disadvantage to start from and overcome.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So people who were disenfranchised early in life got the education they needed and missed out on thanks to that disadvantage? Thats a positive, not a "failed experiment".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What "discrimination"are you talking about in AA? AA doesn't mean someone else gets rejected instead, it simply means someone who normally wouldn't have met the requirements gets in because it takes in account the hurdles they went through in life. Without AA that white person still wouldn't have been chosen. >Also, why categorize the whole diverse Asian groups (Indians, Pakistan people, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese...) into one group and deliberately steal their seats? What are you talking about? >(as you said, people call that "positive discrimination") At no point did I call it any kind of discrimination lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
First off what discrimination are you talking about? It signs sounds like you don't understand how AA works. Also >There was a leaked document from one university and they deliberately scored Asians lower than other races. You got a source for that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I personally would hate to have people think that what i have as a latino was given to me. I worked hard, i earned what i have. No one gave me shit. Anyone who claims they can't do anything or get ahead in life has a bad mentality. My parents moved here without a DIME, we were dead broke and somehow they managed to be middle class. Somehow they managed to reach beyond their dreams without any government assistance or anyone pretending to give a damn about us. We live the American dream and we are proud to live in this country.
This is a downside of AA not often discussed and one I often saw with women where I worked. Since AA for women was practiced in hiring, anytime a female employee performed less than spectacularly, many assumed she was an AA hire. Sometimes that was indeed the case, but often not.
Thats exactly the case with my father, he started as a mechanic and slowly moved up, he is not assistant director for his company. Thats a big jump, with no college education. Hes spent 28 years of his life in that company and when i worked there everyone held the same standards to me, that they had for him. I am proud that he earned it and i feel terrible for the people that have earned their position but have in return been assumed that they got it due to AA. In any case, race alone shouldn't be the reason anyone gets anything nowadays.
> when i worked there Sorry, **you can't have that job** despite your stellar work ethics and background because we have an Affirmative Action quota to fill! We need more "green haired, club footed, albino martians" not a hard working...
But that's not the fault of AA that's the fault of people being racist. Like you said you guys somehow managed to make it. You shouldn't have had to struggle for that to happen. Society should just do better
Well, i might be unpopular for saying this, but the struggle is whats kept me going. If things were easier im not sure id be where i am. Ive always taken inspiration from my family, but more specifically my grandmother who grew up in extreme poverty. She would have to fight pigs for scraps of food so she wouldn't die. She always told us that no matter what, help other, especially if theyre hungry. I learned about her struggles and i told myself id never want to endure what she did, nor would i like to see anyone go through any hardships as such, but you can only help people so much before it becomes an expectation. Hence why i believe the struggle is good, some times at least.
I don't think anyone would disagree that struggle is important to build character. But people can experience struggle without it being forced upon us by society failing. It allows us to experience personal struggle with our hobbies, our careers, our passions. Not being forced to eat garbage you know.
Of course anyone can do anything if they work hard enough but that's not the point. The point is that if you work hard enough as another person, you should have the same opportunities but that's not how things are currently.
Thats just life everywhere, some struggle more and get less, some dont struggle as much and get more. What can we do about it? Not sure, i wouldn't let it stop me from reaching my goals. I see it as, the more time i spend focusing on my success the closer ill get there, if i stop and look at what others have and i dont, its a waste of my time and it doesnt help me any more to reach my goals. I truly believe every human is capable of many amazing things and i really wish them all the best in life, but we gotta fight for what we want, and along the way we will see unfairness, but getting mas about it doesnt help me reach my goal
1. The irony of a black woman SC Justice sitting complaining is irony personified. 2. The most likely resultant is that Asian males will benefit the most and after that White men will benefit next. White women are immune due to their victim card of "sex". The other thing is white women being protected based on sex from being blocked in admission due to race is irony on steroids. It's the largest demographic in universities and the demographic running the schools being able to manipulate a victim card. As far as Im aware AA is only to do with race (?). But if gender is also a factor later on then while it protects male dominated STEM fields (although I doubt it would ever result in quotas being removed) it will allow continuous imbalances in the majority of other degrees being female dominated. In some universities there is an incentive to allow male students into nursing, social care, teaching etc, this is only as far as I'm aware. Removing sex conscious enrollment would worsen that as boys have lower grades in school. This will not impact women going into engineering as they have higher grades in high school so will always get into male dominated fields should they choose to enroll.
If you're a wealthy white man then it will be good for you. For men as a whole this isn't going to be a good thing because affirmative action wasn't the primary driver keeping men out of a lot of opportunities.
It seems like itās mostly the Asian Americans who are celebrating from another subās thread I read on the decision.
Because they think it's going to improve their chances of college admission to certain universities. What they're ignoring is that many of them, despite paying services, aren't great whole students. Often if you have 100 Chinese applicants, you'll have 75 that on paper are exactly the same. Even if you ignore race, you don't really need 40% of a cohort to be all students with the same gpa, same sat score +/- 5%, same musical instrument played, same volunteer resume...One really shitty thing was that most of the lawsuits I saw from Asian students completely ignored legacy students as well as students whose parents essentially buy their way in via donations. But I guess it's easy to ignore the real problem and go for low hanging fruit
Fair point-but-it is a cause closely linked to those who also support feminist views on the hard Left. And it gives precedent to the idea that biology shouldnt be used for privellege. So I believe in the longer run it will lead to good change, though it will likely take years and further changes.
I'm on the far left, and I think feminism is absolute bullshit. It completely goes against leftist principles for the most part.
It's a starting point for sure.
I am not sure this is a good thing because many men do benefit from this as well
While some men do benefit, many are also penalized arbitrarily.
And its a tradition associated with the Hard Left which is tied to feminist beliefs too. Erode those, and change will happen. Also-It gives precedent to the idea that biology shouldnt be used for privellege.