One of the tricky issues in terms of political correctness has been discrimination and when things aren’t discrimination. There was a student group called “Black United Body” at my college, definitely not racist. But if someone had started its logical complement, “Whites United,” it would have seemed horrifyingly racist.<\/p>\n
After a bit of banter, I came to the conclusion that “discrimination” in its non-loaded definition (grouping people into buckets, with no hint of prejudice or value judgment) is generally considered okay when it’s “pro-something” (e.g., a “pro-African-American” group), and generally not okay when it’s anti-something (e.g., anti-gay). <\/p>\n
A bit of a wrinkle is that a “pro-something” when that something has a sizable majority or innate perceived advantage can be construed as anti-something-else: a group to celebrate the culture of white people is not offensive in and of itself, but it seems to conspicuously exclude an oft-belittled minority, so pro-white comes across as anti-black, whereas a pro-black group may not have anti-white sentiments. I think this is kind of like how the SEC has rules that only kick in when you control an overwhelming majority of your industry: Alcoa and Microsoft have run into trouble, whereas if I forced you to buy a brownie if you wanted lemonade at my lemonade stand, the law isn’t applicable. Microsoft bundling IE was consdered to unfairly shut out Netscape, but me forcing brownies with lemonade doesn’t really shut anyone out, since no one would come to my lemonade stand anyway. Thus Caucasians, heterosexuals, and males have some “near-monopoly” special rules, and “monopoly” isn’t always clear. (Men and women are equal in percentage, yet a movement for women’s rights is a good cause, while a movement for men’s rights is nonsensical.)<\/p>\n
Let’s say I start a company with some legitimate reason to consider religion. Let’s call it a Muslim dating site. All’s well and good. After a while, we say that only Muslims can sign up on our site for Muslims. Fair and not discriminatory, even if you say it as “all non-Muslims are banned.” It’s pro-Muslim, not anti-non-Muslim. But now say that the Muslim site decides to welcome their Christian and Hindu brethren, and just changes the rule to “No Jews allowed.” Suddenly, it’s shockingly offensive, because it’s gone from pro-Muslim to anti-Judaism.<\/p>\n
A gay dating site makes sense, but a whites-only dating site would not. A lesbian-only site that precluded gay men and heterosexuals is okay, because you’re not anti-gay-male, but pro-lesbian. Pro-British is okay, because it leaves non-British, a giant category, whereas pro-white excludes only racial minorities. It’s about ensuring that the only group not included in your “pro-something” doesn’t happen to be a minority. Pro-female is okay, but pro-male may get into murky waters… In some cases, at least. A clothing store for men isn’t anti-female, but a male-only supermarket is suspect, since it appears to arbitrarily exclude females. (Plus it makes no sense, but you get the idea.)<\/p>\n
I’m curious if this theory holds up. Some things around this sort of topic are controversial (consider gay rights or affirmative action), but I think there’s a lot of “I’ll know it when I see it,” so I like the idea of reducing it to two rules of thumb that seem to cover most situations. But does it work?<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the tricky issues in terms of political correctness has been discrimination and when things aren’t discrimination. There was a student group called “Black United Body” at my college, definitely not racist. But if someone had started its logical … Continue reading