Any deviation from the white male norm that we do not like is sexism, racism or oppression. If the variance is preferable, such as women’s higher college gradation rates, then women’s naturally higher aptitude is the answer. After all isn’t Marxist equality the goal? Why should we accept any deviation from the white male norm that we don’t like?

My X is an oppressed victim; my Y is an oppressor, especially if the Y has European origins, except when subjected to sun burn and inferior dancing ability.

Who said women have naturally higher aptitudes? I surfed the Web a bit and found lots of explanations for the graduation gap, but none of them said that women are smarter than men. CITATION NEEDED PLZ

And hey - I'm a feminist, and I view boys' lagging behind in school as a problem.

I do not care to debate the educational sexism directed towards men. I was making the point that all negative disparities – from the victim’s perspective - are attributed to oppression, while positive disparities – from the victim’s perspective, such as women’s superior lifespan – are not attributed to oppression. I was critiquing racial or sexual Marxism.

Can you both be rational and simultaneously be a zealot of oppression and victimization?

Who cares if your philosophy harms or disparages men, or whomever you label as “privileged?”

Are you a victim? When you become human garbage, we will love you the most because your need and victimization status is the greatest.

Again, SAYS WHO? You're referring to these mysterious, authoritative "victims," but how about some names?

And being a minority does not make me a fucking victim. We don't want pity; we want reprieve.

Anyone who has “protected” status on your Affirmative Action lists is a victim.

Can you name anyone not oppressed by white men?

Obama quotes, “White men’s greed harms a world of need.” This is the same vilification tactic that the leader of Germany’s National Socialist party directed at the “greedy’ Jews thereby facilitating the Holocaust. Individuals do not commit collective crimes. Marxist do. Economic is our world’s most destructive form of hatred for socialists have murdered hundreds of million of people worldwide. And here we are again with another hate-filled socialist blog… Should you hate (or be envious of) others? Isn’t envy, because it is the most murderous emotion, your greatest sin?

You say you want reprieve…Asians, East Indians and Middle Easterners are wealthier and better educated than the US norm….the Portuguese invented modern slavery…Latinos created their own corrupt economies…Socialism destroys life after life….Take your shot!

I can't continue this discussion if you're going to lump "us" together in a big huddled mass (yearning to breathe free) and decide what "we" think and feel. Especially when you cite no evidence to support your claims. Goodbye.

More nonsense from Ralph7:

Can you name anyone not oppressed by white men?

Yes, other white men. That's part of the justification for affirmative action programs: to force employers to consider candidates who are not white men for employment.

For example: the NFL diversity policy, requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for coaching positions. The policy came about because of the dearth of minority coaches in the NFL.

The NFL was founded in 1920, yet the first Black coach of the NFL (Art Shell) was not hired until 1983.

This dearth of Black caoches did not come about becaue Black people weren't interested in football. Nor did this dearth come about because Black people were not qualified to coach.

There were no Black coaches in the NFL for 63 years because of invidious discrimination. So the NFL implemented a policy to correct this situation.

Now, conservatives would try to argue that white coaches are being discriminated against because they don't have an affirmative action policy or as Ralph7 claims these programs came about because Blacks were considered victims.

Well no shit sherlock! Blacks were victims of racist policies and practices and our society has moved to address that unfair situation.

Ralph7 is like a thief who complains about giving the money they stole back to "the victims". Yes, someone who has been treated unfairly is a victim, so what?

His hope is to protray someone who has actually been wronged as having an illegitimate complaint.

Conservatives are so full of shit. To someone like Ralph7, history of discrimination in this country prior to 1965 doesn't exist.

Per Leftists, "Victim, victim, victim. You're a racist;" therefore, we should pursue absolute Marxist equality through redistribution schemes and particularly by discriminating against poor white men.

Besides being immoral and destructively Marxist, Affirmative Action is irrational and racist as well. Affirmative Action is group punishment or privilege, where racists stereotype white men as oppressors of blacks, women, or whatever other sanctioned victim class. Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, opposes Affirmative Action because it casts doubt on everyone associated with it. Justifying racism by sanctioning the victim - is racism.

Leftwing UCLA professor, Jared Diamond, in his book “Guns, Germs and Steel," in the chapter, “How Africa Became Black” demonstrates that Africa was once primarily populated by red-skinned bushmen, but larger black-skinned West Africans nearly hunted the smaller bushmen into near extinction. Should black Africans be collectively punished? Should the white Irish get special privileges because of English oppression? Do you, with a Chinese mother, deserve more racial/sexual privileges than me with a Native grandfather? Everyone can claim victimization. Sanctioning victims creates more victims

Because one cannot defend the crime of collective punishment; because punishing any individual for a crime he did not commit is immoral; because there is no rational way to determine which individual is relatively more victimized than another and therefore deserves racial preferences or punishments; because protected minorities, who do not benefit from racial preferences, are unfairly stereotyped; and because one cannot simultaneously defend racial preferences/punishments and not be racist; We MUST rationally conclude that Affirmative Action is immoral and indefensible.

Every culture, gender, and ethnicity is equal. There is no minority smaller than the Individual. Therefore, individual rights are civil rights. Group punishment is indefensible no matter how you package or it.

Ralph7:

Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, opposes Affirmative Action because it casts doubt on everyone associated with it. Justifying racism by sanctioning the victim - is racism.

One of many reasons that appointing Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court was an affront to right-thinking lawyers everywhere is that, although he's made a career opposing it for others, he got his freakin' job through affirmative action! He went to Holy Cross through a Minority Recruitment Program. He went to Yale Law after they started a Minority Recruitment Program. President Regan learned about him because of a conference of black conservatives and appointed him to head up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an entity that's supposed to root out job discrimination on race, sex and religion. When the only other black Justice we've ever had on the Court died, President Bush was under tremendous pressure to appoint another black member and he chose Thomas.

"Affirmative Action" has always existed; it's just usually applied to mediocre white men. How do you think Dan Quayle became Vice President? Or, more recently, "Nice job, Brownie!" We just called it the Old Boy Network/Alumni Association/Our Kind Of People.

Ralph7 you are purely full of shit.

Affirmative action is immoral and indefensible . . . when applied to minorities.

But when George W. Bush has a c+ undergraduate average that somehow gets him into Harvard Business School that's just the "white male norm"???

Discrimination against poor white men? Like the discrimination that anyone with an ethnic sounding name faces?

Economic Scene; Sticks and stones can break bones, but the wrong name can make a job hard to find.

By ALAN B. KRUEGER

Published: December 12, 2002 <link>

Schools give special consideration to athletes, musicians, people with varied life experiences, and people from different countries. But whoa if you give any extra consideration based on race you're destroying the fabric of our society with immoral, irrational, and detructive Marxism.

LBJ addressed your concerns early on:

<link>

The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory--as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom--"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

thats not what mlk said..

Before the white guy shot his Uppity Negro self, you mean?

Not only did Clarence Thomas benefit from AA, so did Obama. Poor white men, with “B” grades do not go to Harvard. George W. Bush’s dad contributed to Yale; therefore, Yale felt obligated to accept “C” junior. People do not contribute to universities that refuse their kids. Economics decided for Junior, whereas racism was Obama’s decisive factor. Racism is ugly. Economics is beautiful. Schools should give special consideration to athletes, musicians, economics or any race blind category. Everything else is ugly racism.

If you benefit from AA, without the shame of being racist, you are too immoral to debate. At least Thomas is moral. Obama, on the other hand, is a amoral Marxist. Furthermore, racism to counteract racism, is racist, but in AA’s case it is especially horrendous because the racism is codified. Two wrongs double the damages of the wrongs

Finally, oppressed Mormons (BYU) and the Irish, who suffered thru 800 years of Anglo oppression (Notre Dame) created good schools and do not need racist policies to succeed. In fact, AA is used against the people who suffered through the Holocaust and the Maoist revolution. Dark skinned East Indian and Filipino students do not need racist policies to succeed either, so skin color is no excuse. Why should a Filipino become successful on his own merit, but a Mexican require racism to succeed?

Step up and succeed on or own merits, or proclaim yourself to be so victimized that you cannot succeed without racism! Excuses are for pathetic victims.

MLK on Affirmative Action:

<link>

"On "Preferences"

Reporter: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?"

Dr. King: "I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group." -- (Interview,1965, p.367)

"A section of the white population, perceiving Negro pressure for change, misconstrues it as a demand for privileges...The ensuing white backlash intimidates government officials who are already too timorous." -- "Negroes Are Not Moving Too Fast" (p.177)

Realistic Approach

"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." -- 1964, Why We Can't Wait.

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro..." quoted by Stephen B.Oates, Let The Trumpet Sound.

Ralph7 your rants prove conclusively that you do not know what racism means:

rac·ism

–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.