I see. So you think historical prejudice is a deterrent to Blacks and Latinos, but not to women? The same sorts of barriers and discouragements have served to limit the opportunities available to all three groups, and others. Not long ago, women were barred from medical schools, and considered unfit/incapable of serving as doctors. Now, they are reaching parity among doctors, and outnumber men among young/new doctors. A similar trend is evident with the legal profession.
Race may be a social construct, but if there were no differences among whites, blacks, and latinos, discrimination would not be possible because we could not determine group membership. Yes, skin pigmentation, though an obvious physical difference, is irrelevant in nearly all cases. The thing is, which set of genitalia we have is equally irrelevant in academic and professional contexts. Men and women are far more similar to each other than they are different, sharing a basic common humanity. Extrapolating from the statistically observable physiological differences to assert what men or women can, should, or prefer to do is unsupportable and irresponsible.
yes but allowing women to serve in the medical field and that sort of thing is no longer what feminists seek. in order to continue to hold down a job at their feminist organizations and preserve their organizations (one of my old professors taught me something ill never forget, the duty of any bureacracy is to ensure it stays in practice forever somehow), they expanded it to vaguer definitions of sexism. yes, sweden has a 50 50 male and female politician rate in their national parliament. (or some other scandinavian country, im pretty sure it was sweden). this is progressive sure, but is it economic? no. (hdp party in turkey does this too, within their party, but also 10 percent quote for lgbt, but i commend them for other things). you can not control the market for politicians in such a way that 50 percent of the qualified and publically desired candidates will be 50 percent all the time. some days it will be 43 percent, some days 47 percent, some days 59 percent, some days 52 percent. it is as irrational as controlling prices with rent control. when we know in economics that rent control increases the prices of rent and decreases the quantity and quality of available LEGAL rent (excluding black market). now, i may have detracted from the point because i am having some problems today and i kinda decided to play devils advocate/arguing monkey, but this brings up a valid point. forget abortions, but for the record im not against abortions, because i cant enforce my religious views down other peoples throats. and that's essentially where the argument comes from. and in my case, a desire to bring in a conservative perspective and see how people react. apparently, not well. but one must not ignore human nature. artificially imposing intellectual arguments on a method of living, can sometimes backfire, because while it pays to have progressive fighters fighting on the front lines of society to ensure better quality food, air, water, working conditions, hours, etc. sometimes, not everyone is intellectual. it's like asking a farmer in the us and a phd student in the us to have a lengthy intelelctual discussion and not be family. i got off track, but in other words, sometimes you need to let things be, like the dao. sensors often have it right. an intp that is me often thinks too far into future scenarios without thinking to study for that exam that will get him that finance job. people are a product of their environment, and asking a 10 year old to think about justice and equality by studying chemistry is just gonna confuse them further (though i dont know any 10 year olds' opinion or any 10 year old to be honest, just my intuition, and remembering what i was like when i was 10 and everyone else when they were 10). people are a product of their environment, and by creating a norm, you create a counter reaction, which outdoes the reality of the intended effect. karma. if only we can stay steady. think about it, if you can build a machine (bad example) that can lift 5,000 pounds a day in 2000, but 50,000 in 2050, people extend your workload, and people just keep creating children, and the technology increases, i mean do you honestly think life is easier other than with medicine than it was in the past? sure lgbt rights, womens rights, racial rights, but history is cyclical, not linear, the problems just continue under different names. sorry, keyboard diarrhea. EDIT: also, where does the sexual liberation end? where are we gonna be 500 years from now? even 10 years from now at this rate? 10 years ago we were talking about bullying of gays and gays coming out of the closet, then we have transgenders, then wer have celebration of transgenders, (kardashians kaitlyn jenner) then we have professors saying blacks cant be racist and changing the definition of racism, and now we have my socio class discussing in unision that weneed to ban men's and women's sports and make a unified nfl and nba to accomodate trans and intersex people. (one conservative broke out in protest, but was quickly dismissed)
im not quite sure how to respond to that, but youre free to believe that, buddy.