Being sexually attracted to (or repulsed by) certain racial types: the acceptable face of racism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (230 of them)
Equality of opportunity and equality of result are different things. We might reasonably ask the judgement of law of the land or of an individual to give everyone an equal chance, an equal opportunity. We might ask the law, or the individual, to wear a blindfold when judging. If they peeked, and let the race or gender of the person being judged influence them one way or the other, we might well be justified in calling this 'racist' or 'sexist'.

However, it would not be reasonable to ask the law, or an individual, to guarantee equality of result. (In fact, equality of opporunity is more or less a guarantee of inequality of result.) In other words, nobody would expect all actors in society to be entitled to exactly the same life experiences as all others, and even if we expected an open-minded person to be willing to consider marrying partners of all races, we wouldn't expect him or her to actually marry someone from every race, one after the other. At some point one leaves abstract principles (of equality) and makes a commitment to a particularity. One judges. One chooses. Choice is inevitable. It would be silly to say that every choice is a massive discrimination against the things unchosen.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:41 (twenty years ago) link

to assume that "ms. chen" is an asian/chinese name, is probably also racist but i guess you got that, anyway.

Chen is one of the "lao bai xing" or old 100 names, one of the most common of Chinese surnames. To assume that "Chen" is a Chinese name is hardly racist, it is informed. To assume that Ms. Chen is Chinese may or may not be racist based on whether one is looking at the person or on the telephone. Even looking at the person, one might not be able to tell whether Ms. Chen were Chinese, but it would not be an ignorant racist assumption.

Skottie, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:46 (twenty years ago) link

I have a thing for men with ginger hair and pale skin (I know I know, I’m weird). I also really like mixed race people, I love brown skin and find it very attractive – there’s no particular race I like, just certain facial features. I don’t recall ever being sexually attracted to a blonde, I just don’t like ‘em. It’s just personal taste. Most people I know find my lurve of ginger men bizarre, does this mean they discriminate against gingers? Nope, they just don’t like them and nobody is asking them to! Sheesh!

smee (smee), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

Equality equality of result of opportunity and are things. We might equality ask the judgement of, an equal opportunity. We ask the law, or the might individual, law of the land or of an individual to give everyone an equal chance, to wear a blindfold when different judging. If calling this 'racist' or 'sexist' they peeked, and let the race or of the person gender being judged influence them one way or the other, we might well be justified in .

However, not be reasonable guarantee equality of to ask the law, it would or an individual nobody would expect, to result. (In fact, equality of opporunity of inequality of result.) In other words, all actors in society to be entitled life experiences as all others, and even is more or to exactly the same less a guarantee if we expected an open-minded person to be willing to consider marrying every race, one partners of all races, we wouldn't expect him or her to actually marry someone from after the other. At some point one leaves abstract principles (of equality) and Choice is inevitable. makes a commitment to a particularity. One judges. One chooses. It would be silly to say that every choice is against the things unchosen a massive discrimination

hommus (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

To assume that someone is or isn't Chinese or any other ethnic group is not a racist act. It may be right or wrong, informned or uninformed, but it is not racist. To deny someone employment/housing/etc. because one knows or thinks someone is a particular (or not a particular) ethnicity is racist. The idea that one should not be able to ascertain or notice an ethicity is dumb.

Skottie, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:49 (twenty years ago) link

People can/do create shorthand rules based on observations about their "particularities" and once they begin to enforce said rules, even unconsciously, that really is discrimination. The definition of open-minded probably ought to refer to someone who pays no mind to their own supposed preferences at all.

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:50 (twenty years ago) link

skottie, what you just posted was obviously correct. And, unrelatedly, maybe using "ms chen" as the name of a stereotypical chinese woman probably isn't necessary racist, i suppose.

i get the feeling that the actual points of my posts early would never actually be read, anyway.

ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:07 (twenty years ago) link

("early" should have been "earlier")

ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:08 (twenty years ago) link

If they peeked, and let the race or gender of the person being judged influence them one way or the other, we might well be justified in calling this 'racist' or 'sexist'.

IRL, I think there are very few cases where race and gender are immaterial to judgement. These are still 'differences that make a difference', and need to be taken into account when we make judgements. If they aren't, our judgements can't be fair. So I think the image of Justice wearing a blindfold is a rather silly one, and I also think that to call people 'racist' and 'sexist' -- if it just means they take race and gender into account -- is a wrongheaded criticism.

'My it ain't so open that anything could crawl right in...'

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:09 (twenty years ago) link

'My mind it ain't so open that anything could crawl right in...'

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:10 (twenty years ago) link

The last place to lose yourself
Is. In. The. World. Where. We. All.
Cling cling cling cling cling cling cling cling

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:12 (twenty years ago) link

What kind of "difference that makes a difference" is deserving of a race-wide attribution?

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:13 (twenty years ago) link

white men can't jump

ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:14 (twenty years ago) link

Race, as long as it makes a difference (and I don't say it should) must be taken into account. Not to do so is unfair.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:15 (twenty years ago) link

It's worth remembering, though, that all human affairs and all human beings are multi-dimensional. Race and gender are just vectors in a big spill pile with hundreds of other criteria. And they all have to be taken into account.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:17 (twenty years ago) link

(incidentally, before it looks like I'm being holier than thou - I think most of those open-minded people actually live in magic-fantasy-fun-land)

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:19 (twenty years ago) link

If they ALL have to be taken into account, having a racial preference is contradictory - full stop.

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:22 (twenty years ago) link

You can have a racial preference amongst other preferences. Your racial preference might be shorthand for a whole slew of other preferences. Dark hair and eyes, non-Christianity, etc.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:24 (twenty years ago) link

Emphasis on the word "racial" as in that context it should have lost meaning.

shorthand = prejudice

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:25 (twenty years ago) link

i want to make out with a girl with a 4 dimensional vagina

ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:26 (twenty years ago) link

oh and prejudice = lazy and lazy = human

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:26 (twenty years ago) link

and human = shit

ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:28 (twenty years ago) link

"Show me a person without prejudices, and I'll show you..."

Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:28 (twenty years ago) link

Also, humans fit things into categories. It would be impossible to speak, or even think, without categories. The question is, what sorts of values we apply on different categories, and do we realize there's more than them, even if we use them for conviniency's sake.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:31 (twenty years ago) link

If 'prejudice' means what you believe before you've tried something, there should be a word like 'postjudice' for what you know after you've tried it. Prejudice would be bad, but postjudice would be fine.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:33 (twenty years ago) link

Baby I've tried 'em all, and it's you, you, you
Don't call me postjudiced, it's true, true, true

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:35 (twenty years ago) link

I think what I'm getting at is that everyone uses pre-judgements to some degree or other, and they are highly useful, but are also very unreliable in terms of their fairness/justness/acceptabilty. I mean, defend their usefulness and expediency, but recognise that little else there is so worthy.

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:37 (twenty years ago) link

How about 'sub judice'? You never stop learning (or changing yr judgements).

Liz :x (Liz :x), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:39 (twenty years ago) link

haha, post-judice = like god or sumfin'

Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:42 (twenty years ago) link

How about 'sub judice'? You never stop learning (or changing yr judgements).

The thing is, choices and decisions and value judegements are necessary. We all need closure at some point. If everything is sub-judice all the time, it's chaos. And the context I most hear that phrase in is when the authorities gag the press, telling them they can report something because it's being judged. In other words, 'You can't judge this before I do.'

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:45 (twenty years ago) link

can can't

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:46 (twenty years ago) link

the word you're looking for is "estimation" or "opinion," M

always happy to help

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:24 (twenty years ago) link

Kim OT fucking M, as always.

Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:32 (twenty years ago) link

In other words, nobody would expect all actors in society to be entitled to exactly the same life experiences as all others, and even if we expected an open-minded person to be willing to consider marrying partners of all races, we wouldn't expect him or her to actually marry someone from every race, one after the other.

This would actually be the greatest thing ever and will be the cornerstone of my 2008 presidential campaign.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 16:14 (twenty years ago) link

Well, you'll get the polygamy vote. Utah is yours for the taking.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 16:37 (twenty years ago) link

HOORAY.

VengaDan Perry for President (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 16:41 (twenty years ago) link

PERRY IN '08

He'll give it to everyone.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:07 (twenty years ago) link

(On a more serious note, I don't think I've ever agreed with anything Momus has said more strongly than I have with the sentence I quoted.)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:09 (twenty years ago) link

Perry-Momus - the dream ticket. Book your seat on the Venga campaign bus now.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:14 (twenty years ago) link

It does sound more appealing than the Kerry campaign, scarily enough.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:15 (twenty years ago) link

(I am more than half-serious about running for president in 2008, BTW)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:16 (twenty years ago) link

In that case more than 90% of your posts here would have to be deleted....depending on the tenor of your campaign.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:17 (twenty years ago) link

Right now I'm hoping for Ian Bostridge or Anthony Dean Griffey.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:18 (twenty years ago) link

Dan if you run for President in 2008 it may well be the greatest thing ever.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:24 (twenty years ago) link

From reading personal ads, it seems like women are in general more likely have racial preferences. Especially online, where this is as easy as omitting checks from a few boxes. Lots of women seem to be willing to date anyone so long as they aren't black or middle-eastern. Or they'll dodge the race question and eliminate Muslim men.

Chris H. (chrisherbert), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:37 (twenty years ago) link

Eliminate them? Cripes - what magazines are you reading?

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:47 (twenty years ago) link

The National Review, obv.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:48 (twenty years ago) link

Look at a personal ad site online. Match.com or whatever, and you'll see people, mostly women, with a long list of acceptable religions/denominations, and Muslim will not be there. That's all I mean. I don't know, maybe they're afraid that muslim men will beat them or something, that's the stereotype, isn't it?

Chris H. (chrisherbert), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 17:58 (twenty years ago) link

Or maybe they feel that the Muslim world view is incompatible with theirs? Who knows? I wouldn't date a devout Muslim for that reason, but I would have no problem dating a Muslim who was one merely by circumstance and didn't practice. Bit also, I couldn't see myself dating a devout Christian or Jew. But... I think I could probably date a Quaker. Hmmmmmm....

Lil' Fancy Kpants (The K is Silent) (ex machina), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 18:01 (twenty years ago) link

Yeah, but these sites have really long lists of religions. Quaker would probably fall under Protestant. But using Match.com as an example, possible choices are: Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist/Taoist, Christian/Catholic, Christian/LDS, Christian/Protestant, Christian/Other, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim/Islam, Spiritual but not religious, and Other.

Maybe I'm being a policeman, but it seems suspicious to think that anything *except* muslim is okay.

Chris H. (chrisherbert), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 18:07 (twenty years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.