Toxic Feminism

[VILLANELLE]

 

[INTJMom]

Just because one assumes a certain class is privileged, it doesn't mean that they are. And a lot of the times, the answer isn't to give more privilege to the less privileged people. The answer would be to level the playing field completely.

In India, we have something called the caste system, which is a form of social hierarchy. I'm a member of the highest of all classes and supposedly a smallest minority of people. Yet, I don't feel privileged because these days, I know several lower caste people who are better off than the higher castes. And then, historically, in the past, men of my caste had several privilages but the women were treated like cattle. They used to call us, 'the ones who remain inside.' Lower caste women lead better lives than we ever did. Yet, now the government has given special rights and privilages to the lower castes, like priority in employment and lower fee rates for educational institutions. This is like saying, if someone from the higher caste starves, it's okay but god forbid someone from the lower caste does.

I think this system is entirely flawed. This is the problem with using a word like 'privilage.' I was born into a good family and when I was in highschool, I had a friend who was from the lowest of all castes. We both got similar grades but the school gave her a free education because of her caste. I thought that was okay since her family was poor. But then, we applied for the same college and she got in while I didn't. Theoretically, I am more privileged because I came from a richer family but is it right for the university to do this? This is the problem I find with using privilage as an excuse.

I'm not denying that some people are more privileged than others. This is 100% true. So, it isn't wrong to give a helping hand to the less privileged. But doing it by stepping on the toes of the more privileged is just wrong. I think this was [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION] 's point. Not sure though.

It made me sad to read your post.
I was accepted to a college only because I was a female (B average student).
My guidance counselor told me the college had a quota they had to meet (Technical school).
I found it insulting to be used to meet a quota.
I am not interested in having something I don't deserve.

 

[EcK]

Being born into wealth is not a privilege? Belonging to a demographic assumed to have greater skills is not a privilege? Being born with a genetically healthy body is not a privilege?

You can use the word "advantage" instead, but of course people are not born into an equal playing field. Some people have genetic, economic, and demographic advantage that others do not. Do you deny the existence of racism and sexism? Have you ever had someone assume something about you positive or negative simply because you belong to a demographic?

"Privilege" is not a moral term. It simply means an "advantage". Some people are given leeway in society. They do not get the same treatment for being chosen for jobs, for being punished for crimes, etc. This is a well established fact. If you disagree with it, then the burden of proof is on you to show that there are not statistical tendencies related to race, gender, or economic status.

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

No. Because using words such as this puts everyone else in the "helpless victim that needs help" category and helps vilify those who do belong to that group. Being educated, being capable and productive is not a privilege its what any man and woman living in a civilized society should aspire to be. Say being "white" in America is the NORM, being normal is not a privilege. It's being normal/average.

Now when it comes to life/career achievements using terms such as privilege only serves to "excuse" everyone else's lack.
If you are part of a community that commits crime etc. That's not the fault of the "privileged", that's the fault of that community as a whole.

Terms like privilege just oversimplify reality and give people excuses to blame all their own choices and who they are on other people assuming that the reason why they fail and other sucees is due to some nebulous "privilege".

You gotta call thing what they are. Shifting the "norm" into a "privilege" is silly. That's like calling every 4 legged chair a "privileged chair" - no that s just a normal chair.

 

[EcK]

Why is it so hard to admit the forms of privilege a person experiences based on society's assumptions? I belong to some privileged and some non-privileged demographics, as do most humans. There is also an overlay of individual variance. Society in general assumes some positive attributes and negative attributes about each person based on its underlying assumptions and prejudices. It takes objectivity to see what our advantages are and what our disadvantages are.

What is the point of denying the entire existence of racism or sexism, or any other kind of ism? That is a drastic and profound statement to disregard long and proven history of societal imbalances. I understand debating specifics, but if one dismisses the existence of these issues altogether, what is the line of reasoning, the specific data that this new idea is being based on? If the position is valid, it can be systematically proven. This is the thread to make that case.

For the same reason I "don't want to admit" that 1+1=3 : because it's wrong.

The term "privileged" used in that context denotes of a very poor understanding of the English language. What you meant to say - I hope - is that X has an advantage over Y in category Z. And no privilege and advantage are not synonyms for Pete's sake. Please tell me you don't teach English to kids.

What puzzles me is that you literally quoted the definition of the word to me and still appear unaware of its meaning.

A privileged is

priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

So basically if you say , for example, white privilege. You are saying that some things are ONLY available to whites. Which would be the case during say the apartheid in South Africa between the white citizens and the then non citizen black, indian etc residents.
So saying that whites have "privilege" as a whole in western countries is fucking ridiculous.

A good example of the proper use of the term privilege, if you insist on using it, is say citizenship.
Citizenship grants privileges not available to non citizens (right to stay on the territory being the most basic one).

it's not that people son't want to "admit privilege" it's that the ppl yammering about privilege don't understand what the word means and just appear as silly to anyone with a basic grasp of the language.

 

[Amargith]

Fi vs Ti strikes again.

 

[kelric]

This all being said, when the word "feminism" comes up, I find myself having a strongly negative emotional reaction. I think it's a word that many people interpret differently and that many women appear blind towards the destructive factions involved.

I'm pretty late to the discussion, but I'll jump in anyway, and I'm not afraid to admit that I agree with Highlander here. I don't think your experience is an aberration. The thing is, the word has become highly charged in the last few years. To some people, it literally means "equality opportunities for everyone regardless of gender". To others, it means "men suck and everything is their fault - and if you're a man, you're guilty of anything any man's ever done, you should be ashamed of yourself, and anything you've ever accomplished was given to you and is hence worth nothing." Lots of people are in the middle to various extremes, of course, but in general the word has outlived its usefulness. It's often hard to have a discussion when you can't agree on the definition of terms, and when strong emotions are involved with definitions, it makes it even more difficult.

I wonder if women in general realize just how negative of a meaning this word has to a lot of men.

Everyone tends to remember more strongly things that they respond to negatively. When they feel attacked, or disparaged. When they see (or more importantly, *think* they see) others receiving advantages that they themselves are not able to take advantage of. So even though I certainly appreciate all of the great things that have been done in the name of feminism, I tend to associate the term itself with a movement that inherently dislikes and distrusts me simply for being a man, and one that encourages me to disparage myself in some sort of atonement for things that I've never agreed with.

It doesn't help that most often, feminist causes proclaim that they work for equality... and then *only* address issues that pertain to women. Getting girls and women involved in STEM fields is an often-mentioned. We should absolutely make every reasonable effort to ensure that everyone can pursue their dreams without pressure or mistreatment. But that applies for men who want to be elementary school teachers too, and I don't see anywhere near as much effort to support those presumptive pedophiles. There are a lot of similar examples, and of course no movement can be everything to everybody whose ever suffered from any injustice - and *everybody* has suffered from an injustice at one time or another. But to claim that a movement is literally synonymous with equality between genders, and then only concern itself with the welfare of one gender seems disingenuous, and feminism fails pretty hard in this regard.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for equal opportunities for everyone. I know that growing up as a middle/upper-middle class white guy in the 70's and 80's gave me some advantages (my sister got most of them too, of course). I'm a decent person. I'm generally willing to help, and I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. But I'm also not the bad guy, and a lot of self-proclaimed feminists' writings make me feel like "feminism" thinks I am, and that I'm inherently un-redeemable.

 

[Red Herring]

Fi vs Ti strikes again.

You are being unfair. Some Ti-users are silently bumping their head against a wall after reading this thread, astonished at the number of people seemingly not grasping basic concepts.

 

[rav3n]

Fi vs Ti strikes again.

Nah, it's the same side of the coin. No one wishes to be grossly generalised, particularly when someone's applying the description for the lowest hanging fruit in order to burn down the literal strawMales and strawFeminists.

 

[Starry]

No. Because using words such as this puts everyone else in the "helpless victim that needs help" category and helps vilify those who do belong to that group. Being educated, being capable and productive is not a privilege its what any man and woman living in a civilized society should aspire to be. Say being "white" in America is the NORM, being normal is not a privilege. It's being normal/average.

Now when it comes to life/career achievements using terms such as privilege only serves to "excuse" everyone else's lack.
If you are part of a community that commits crime etc. That's not the fault of the "privileged", that's the fault of that community as a whole.

Terms like privilege just oversimplify reality and give people excuses to blame all their own choices and who they are on other people assuming that the reason why they fail and other sucees is due to some nebulous "privilege".

You gotta call thing what they are. Shifting the "norm" into a "privilege" is silly. That's like calling every 4 legged chair a "privileged chair" - no that s just a normal chair.

Just because people define themselves in ways that let them stay the victim (so they don't need to do the hard work of lifting themselves up) and instead blame others... doesn't mean privilege isn't a legitimate concept and comes into play here.

I know damn well that I could commit a series of crimes with a mere slap on the wrist while you would be making sure never to drop the soap in the shower if convicted of those same crimes...

What would you call that Eck? Normal? A chair with 4 legs?

 

[EcK]

Just because people define themselves in ways that let them stay the victim (so they don't need to do the hard work of lifting themselves up) and instead blame others... doesn't mean privilege isn't a legitimate concept and comes into play here.

I know damn well that I could commit a series of crimes with a mere slap on the wrist while you would be making sure never to drop the soap in the shower if convicted of those same crimes...

What would you call that Eck? Normal? A chair with 4 legs?

A) that s very vague so i can t answer that
B) please refer to my subsequent post on the meaning of the word privilege.

 

[Starry]

A) that s very vague so i can t answer that
B) please refer to my subsequent post on the meaning of the word privilege.

A privileged is


So basically if you say , for example, white privilege. You are saying that some things are ONLY available to whites. Which would be the case during say the apartheid in South Africa between the white citizens and the then non citizen black, indian etc residents.
So saying that whites have "privilege" as a whole in western countries is fucking ridiculous.

A good example of the proper use of the term privilege, if you insist on using it, is say citizenship.
Citizenship grants privileges not available to non citizens (right to stay on the territory being the most basic one).

it's not that people son't want to "admit privilege" it's that the ppl yammering about privilege don't understand what the word means and just appear as silly to anyone with a basic grasp of the language.

Vague? Come on man... your mind tricks won't work with me While I have never seen you use it yourself... there's no doubt in my own brilliant mind that you are quite familiar with all the popular examples of female privilege meant to counter examples of male privilege. I generally use our advantage in the judicial system because I am of the opinion this one holds some weight...over say...the female privilege of "having the door held open for them" or "not paying for flowers and popcorn on dates."

So, anyway, surprise...I had already referred to your definition of privilege and...surprise again...I feel okay about it. I don't feel it is complete...but that's fine.

Women receive lesser punishments than men for the same crimes <-What would you call that?
(*I should add that I'm not even trying to prove some point...I'm sincerely curious with regards to what that is in your understanding. Again, because it is a highly used example of female privilege...)

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

For the same reason I "don't want to admit" that 1+1=3 : because it's wrong.

The term "privileged" used in that context denotes of a very poor understanding of the English language. What you meant to say - I hope - is that X has an advantage over Y in category Z. And no privilege and advantage are not synonyms for Pete's sake. Please tell me you don't teach English to kids.

What puzzles me is that you literally quoted the definition of the word to me and still appear unaware of its meaning.

A privileged is


So basically if you say , for example, white privilege. You are saying that some things are ONLY available to whites. Which would be the case during say the apartheid in South Africa between the white citizens and the then non citizen black, indian etc residents.
So saying that whites have "privilege" as a whole in western countries is fucking ridiculous.

A good example of the proper use of the term privilege, if you insist on using it, is say citizenship.
Citizenship grants privileges not available to non citizens (right to stay on the territory being the most basic one).

it's not that people son't want to "admit privilege" it's that the ppl yammering about privilege don't understand what the word means and just appear as silly to anyone with a basic grasp of the language.

I encountered the term taking graduate courses in sociology/psychology. It comes from a social theory based on the work of historian W. E. B. Du Bois. You can certainly disagree with the concept, but understand I am not personally inventing a use for the term, but instead I am applying established usage.
Privilege (social inequality) - Wikipedia

 

[Amargith]

You are being unfair. Some Ti-users are silently bumping their head against a wall after reading this thread, astonished at the number of people seemingly not grasping basic concepts.

Nah, it's the same side of the coin. No one wishes to be grossly generalised, particularly when someone's applying the description for the lowest hanging fruit in order to burn down the literal strawMales and strawFeminists.

It was a mostly tongue in cheek remark to lighten the mood and point out the miscommunication i saw developing due to the shift in focus. It was in no way meant as a generalised knock on anyone's communication skills, honest.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

No. Because using words such as this puts everyone else in the "helpless victim that needs help" category and helps vilify those who do belong to that group. Being educated, being capable and productive is not a privilege its what any man and woman living in a civilized society should aspire to be. Say being "white" in America is the NORM, being normal is not a privilege. It's being normal/average.

Now when it comes to life/career achievements using terms such as privilege only serves to "excuse" everyone else's lack.
If you are part of a community that commits crime etc. That's not the fault of the "privileged", that's the fault of that community as a whole.

Terms like privilege just oversimplify reality and give people excuses to blame all their own choices and who they are on other people assuming that the reason why they fail and other sucees is due to some nebulous "privilege".

You gotta call thing what they are. Shifting the "norm" into a "privilege" is silly. That's like calling every 4 legged chair a "privileged chair" - no that s just a normal chair.

There needs to be some way of approaching these established power imbalances without so much personalizing of it. My use of the term "privilege" is based on standardized use in academia currently. There are many instances where the majority in group dynamics are given certain benefits and a small number are ostracized, and so there needs to be a way to define these dynamics. That is a common and serious issue in humanity. In some cases the four-legged chair has an advantage over the three-legged chair, even when there is only one chair in the room with the broken leg. What term would you use to apply to the majority rule, the group domination over the ostracized few? It happens in every classroom and church - what is it called?

As I said in the original post you responded to, sometimes suppressed demographics are triggered to suppress whatever demographic is still imbued with less power because it is their "last leg up". I also acknowledged the problems with victim culture that focuses on minutia as suppression over the serious issues. I also mentioned that no demographic possesses inherent morality, but that when there is a power imbalance between any two demographics, that violations will result. These are not two-dimensional in which it is always one group towards another, even when generally it is, there are still subcultures in which dynamics are reversed.

There is a deeply engrained cultural value of denial that I see in many instances. Sometimes the surface victim culture can actually be part of that because it emphasizes minutia over the serious issues of violence in our society that results from subconscious entitlements of demographic power imbalances. The U.S. is a place where extreme violations occur without much legal recourse on a regular basis. Perhaps my perception is skewed by my location, but what I am fighting for is the actual life of people I care about. I care about people who are victimized with physical assaults that leave bodies broken. Are they a helpless victim? During the assault yes, they are, but afterwards? I won't judge their process of recovery or response to victimization, but I will fight power imbalances to try to make society more just.

 

[EcK]

I encountered the term taking graduate courses in sociology/psychology. It comes from a social theory based on the work of historian W. E. B. Du Bois. You can certainly disagree with the concept, but understand I am not personally inventing a use for the term, but instead I am applying established usage.
Privilege (social inequality) - Wikipedia

And you expect me to take a guy who can't understand his own language seriously because he has a degree and other people agree with him? I can find people who wrote papers about how the earth is 6000 years old. Doesnt make it a valid argument.

 

[Cellmold]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm not sure if I'm going to put more energy into this thread that I'm about to in this post (though there does seem to be an interesting discussion happening).

I think I'm somewhere between being inclined to thinking of it positively and being in the middle. I was much more gung ho about in the past, despite being a man, but I really think some people can take it too far and be incredibly unreasonable. That being said, i think it's difficult to really be aware of someone's experience that is different from yours, and there's a lot of things that probably escape my attention (Detroit kind of made this point fresh on my mind), so I'm not inclined to make some statement that "sexism is over."

I would say that when people take it too far is when it comes to stuff like women in STEM. I really haven't seen much of the sexism that is supposed to be holding women back in these fields (but I'll put in the caveat that again, my experience is limited), except for when I've done things in parts of the country that are more socially conservative, anyway. Maybe the reason for the disparity is just that many women don't want to enter those fields? I'm not saying that the people who do should be discouraged or looked down or anything like that. I just think that maybe things other than sexism explain that disparity, which isn't the same thing as saying that "it's a man's field and women shouldn't be allowed in." If some women don't want to do STEM, maybe that's ok? I mean, I've known a lot of women who are into STEM, but I've also known a lot who aren't.

I think there's also a personal factor at play here. Because I'm a man in STEM, and somewhat dorky, I feel like there's an implicit attitude in this statements that I must be part of the problem unless I work really hard to show that I'm not. I feel like there's a stereotype of misogynist neckbeard upset that he's not getting laid that I kind of don't like being associated with it (and I'm not sure that I've really even seen that much of it, iin reality; it almost seems like a straw man). It's possible that there's a lot that flies under my radar, though.

As for people bitching about the greater prominence of women in popular culture, they need to stop whining, given the huge amount of movies that exist with male protagonists. People who act like a few female protagonists are the end of the world baffle me.

 

[Coriolis]

This is one of the main reasons why I ask men to man the fuck up and live their manhood and code of honor as opposed to what this maelstrom of ludicrous SJW agenda is prompting them to do.

What do you mean by "live their manhood", and what comprises this code of honor?

I agree with you.
From what I have personally seen, feminism = man-hating.
I refuse to be a man-hater.
In my line of work, men and women receive equal pay for equal work.
There are males and females in all levels of authority.
I try to treat every human being equally, with dignity and respect.

Well, I hope you continue to life free of the gender bias that affects so many women (and men). I have experienced very little of it directly myself, though many friends and colleagues have not been so fortunate. If we have been able to enjoy relatively equal opportunity and respect, it is due largely to the efforts of generations of feminists man-haters who came before us, and worked to make it so.

Not to mention all of its contradictions, for instance: Why is a father perceived as being equally important as a mother, when it is at the same time perfectly acceptable for a woman to inseminate and raise a child all on her own?

One might as well ask: why is a mother as important as a father, when a man can adopt a child or have one carried for him by a surrogate? Acceptance of single-parenthood for either gender, and more broadly the idea of "non-traditional" families, lies at the intersection of gender rights, LGBT rights, and the broader idea of respecting individual choices.

In general, feminists like to talk about tolerance and openness, while very rarely practicing it. Here in Sweden it is obvious. Our government is outspokenly feminist, which goes very well together with our secularism. But forcing religious midwives to perform abortion or else they might lose their job, further reducing the freedom of parochial schools and forbidding wearing religious symbols at workplaces is not the way to a tolerant and open society.

Tolerance and openness is all well and good, but the feminists I know speak more often of equality of opportunity and responsibility. Yes, most feminists support abortion rights, but what you describe in the last paragraph is more indicative of the broader issue of separation of church and state.

To me, in addition to the idea that women are whole individuals and not just extensions of men, feminism is more about femininity being regarded as equally important as masculinity. This isn't women vs men, but even valuing the feminine aspects of nature, feminine interests or talents (i.e. the arts), and feminine methods regardless of your actual sex.

I think women in the western world have equal opportunity in most ways, and what's left has it's equivalent challenges for men (i.e. men may face discrimination or some hostility in traditionally female jobs or roles). Pushing women towards traditionally masculine roles / jobs to secure equality kinda suggests to me that femininity is somehow inferior and women must be more masculine to be equal. Or that men must reject all femininity so it doesn't weaken them. The inherent misogyny is not about hating women, but a degrading of femininity as a force, period. It's evident in culture how everything is about achieving and doing and competing....feminine energy is pegged as lazy or too dependent. I think misogyny is often a fear of the power of femininity, thus wanting to keep it in an inferior position.

I'd rather see the positioning of feminine roles and jobs as equal in value and importance, as well as valuing feminine energy or methods (for lack of better term). Even within certain jobs and roles, recognizing that a feminine approach can be just as valid in a masculine atmosphere, or that a masculine approach is as valid in a job / role seen as traditionally feminine. I think that this removes the competitive aspect, because the current approach seems to suggest masculinity is toxic, and yet it takes and advocates for a very masculine approach in women, and then it becomes men vs women, but femininity is actually degraded by both.

This is all well and good, as long as we separate the idea of masculine and feminine from one's actual (i.e. biological) sex. Otherwise we are keeping men and women in the same boxes, just adjusting the relative value of those boxes. So many books and essays that promote the value and virtues of those feminine methods or energy leave me feeling that, if I don't exhibit or embrace them, I am somehow less a woman than one who does.

Your analogy with Westboro Baptist Church is apt, though. Most people have no problem understanding that they don't speak for all Christians. Same applies to extremists among feminism.

I would say that when people take it too far is when it comes to stuff like women in STEM. I really haven't seen much of the sexism that is supposed to be holding women back in these fields (but I'll put in the caveat that again, my experience is limited), except for when I've done things in parts of the country that are more socially conservative, anyway. Maybe the reason for the disparity is just that many women don't want to enter those fields? I'm not saying that the people who do should be discouraged or looked down or anything like that. I just think that maybe things other than sexism explain that disparity, which isn't the same thing as saying that "it's a man's field and women shouldn't be allowed in." If some women don't want to do STEM, maybe that's ok? I mean, I've known a lot of women who are into STEM, but I've also known a lot who aren't.

Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in most STEM fields; Native Americans especially so. Can we assume, then, that they just don't want to enter those fields? Can you think of anything that might explain this relative lack of desire?

 

[Sacrophagus]

Wouldn't what you are describing as 'male and female natural dynamics' come naturally?

Some women take such interventions as if we want to relegate women to inferior status. Respectful men have the highest regard for women and always have. Not only the women I frequent, but it is also clear that throughout history women can be and are brilliant scientists and thinkers and effective business and political leaders as well and that is to be admired. In fact some such women are among those that I admire most, especially if they manage to do so without subverting their femininity. Yes, I love feminine woman, and I'm a psycho by feminist standards.

What's omitted here, is that no one wants to discuss the naturally evolved roles of male and female from a biological and psychological perspective. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with either individual men or women breaking out of those roles or redefining them today in any truly positive way.The problem comes when societies as a whole attempt to subvert the natural biological roles of male and female in their relationships with each other, and most importantly in the family. Generally this distorsion is due to the misguided policies of the legislators who impose laws and ethical values which may seem to be well intentioned measures to correct real problems, but which being poorly formulated, either by ignorance or design, actually cause severer unintended consequences than the problems they were designed to remedy. When that is done there is grave danger that primitive evolved psychological imperatives will be directly triggered and lead to significant and even severe problems for society.

Men slowly relinquished their role to fit in and be validated by the newly agenda roaming in society about how men should treat women, and how women should treat men, added to a huge double standard hoax and inane rationnalization. Yeah, I never had any problem with feminist women directly, because they adjust their behavior with me since I'm respectful, genuinely caring, and takes no shit from anyone.

Feminists who complain about relationship problems are in a constant struggle. They say they want a man, but what they want is actually closer to describe a doormat, then they talk about feelings, about insecure men, about this and about that. Of course there are insecure men everywhere now. Though they are responsible for their behavior, you gotta give it up to the state and laws who contributed in shaping them for you into this new male breed that is loyal to the description of a man you have been instructed.

Laws and policies that lead men and women to blame each other for their problems naturally divert attention from the failures of the state and its leaders who are too often the real cause of the problems affecting both.

We're social animals naturally gravitating around the establishment of long term relationships for the final benefit of our family and children. Just like women crave security and care, men crave a certain level of emotional support to validate his being a man which prompts them to love them even more. There are many instances where a woman who can lead steps out and lets the man handle things because she's aware of this inclination in the natural psychological needs of a man. Likewise it is the man's responsibility and duty to do the same for his woman to make sure she receives the praise and appreciation and love to feel she is worthwhile as a woman and as a person. That is absolutely essential to a good relationship, and by each partner doing so they in turn incentivize the other partner to do likewise and thereby strengthen the bonds of the relationship.

What do you mean by "live their manhood", and what comprises this code of honor?

This subject will bring us to a very long discussion that could corner many aspects tackling direct and indirect reasons in addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of the feminists as individuals and feminism as a whole phenomenon.

But to answer you query, I talked about manliness because there are men who act like males devoid of volition and desire to fulfil that role, afraid of the repercussions and the naysayers.

Your intentions are pure? You return goodness with good? You feel you're being taken for granted as a man? Only because you don't respect yourself, and only because you don't fully own yourself.

The code of honor of the gentleman is of moral rectitude, loyalty, courtesy, compassion, respect and self-respect, to help those who need your aid, to protect those who need protection, to honor your principles and your oaths, to show humility, to show confidence and courage at the risk of appearing arrogant, to fulfil your duties, and if needs be, to sacrifice what needs to be sacrificed.

All that a man is shall live in his command. He'll take no prisoners.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in most STEM fields; Native Americans especially so. Can we assume, then, that they just don't want to enter those fields? Can you think of anything that might explain this relative lack of desire?

Where I live there is a nationally acclaimed composer who is Native American and has lived in this community for years, and yet instead of someone like him being a professor at the local university, they bring in people from Germany trained on the East Coast, and I would say it is perceptually (possibly subconsciously) because that *feels* the closest to hiring Bach or Beethoven, our idealized role models. Change the role models, change the choices and outcomes. This has to do with the natural flow of society and culture and it not a matter of "fault", but of unacknowledged perceptual assumptions.

As a general rule, people tend to need to see concrete examples of possibilities. The issue with lack of interest between certain demographics and fields of study has a lot to do with culturally not seeing it as an option or possibility. This has to do with lack of role models and the response of family and authority figures when interest is expressed. The majority of these imbalances are perpetuated at a subconscious level resulting from shared perceptual assumptions.