Is this world sexist the way we were racist 50 years ago?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

deltablues said:
They follow the wacky French philosopher Jacques Derrida's belief that if one breaks apart the so-called hidden hierarchies in language terms, one can open up a "lacuna" in understanding and free the mind of the reader/critic, baby. Problem is that there is no lacuna - it is a device to re-write or leverage history to fit contemporary agendas.
Click to expand...
Jack appears to have misunderstood Heidegger's musings on, 'the clearing in which Being reveals itself'. Don't ask for the exact quote from Heidegger. We neither of us have enough time for me to find it.
 
Niggardly. Good word, that. Useful to throw into conversation to work out who the stupid sheeple are in any group.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

deltablues said:
Were we racist 50 years ago? The assumptions and trigger words in the thread title interest me in the sense that the themes here (race and sexism) are part of the overall meme thru which folk express themselves these days. What I mean is that we assume that we can judge by our standards of today the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.
Click to expand...

was there a time, say, a Fraser period, where domestic and p'raps Western* post racial society?
*asterisk denotes, yes, i appreciate this dichotomy is creating an "other".

lets run with he post-racial point, which may not be correct, it is flawed as i recognised. But this premise, it leaves some vacuum, and with maturity of political strategy, identity politics emerges in a dialectic.

i am sure one will be point out the error of my layperson perception and or incorrect use of terminology.
deltablues said:
This raises the concept of history. Unfortunately, the word "history" is being subverted by activists and their media facilitators as part of an attempt to reverse centuries of perceived (and actual) historic wrongs by engaging in deconstructive "narratives" to fit the various menus on the table in today's culture wars - ignoring the complexity of the historical reality by reference to those times, and relying on some kind of simple social theory. It can be a mistake to judge, by our standards of today, particularly on race, the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.

The neo-Marxist historians and activist academics in the literature and linguistics departments look at culture as being encoded in language that must change with the material conditions - as the social environment changes, so too then must the language constructs. They argue that each era has a language structure which determines the questions that people can ask and the answers they can receive. And as conditions change historically so do the mental tropes, thereby from a new perspective (i.e. the activists' perspective) rendering, among other things, the zeitgeist and literature of the past age an affront and ripe for revisionism.

They follow the wacky French philosopher Jacques Derrida's belief that if one breaks apart the so-called hidden hierarchies in language terms, one can open up a "lacuna" in understanding and free the mind of the reader/critic, baby. Problem is that there is no lacuna - it is a device to re-write or leverage history to fit contemporary agendas.

This re-writing of history is all part of deconstructionalism, in accordance with Michel Foucault's New Historicism theory, where modern "narratives" are sought to be imposed upon the literature/history of past ages. This is the creed of the moral movement and their fellow travelers - always searching for causes and wars (war on this, war on that) in order to stick it to The Man under the guise of seeking to reverse centuries of perceived historic wrongs.

One basic example (linguistic-wise and history-wise) of this mindset is the charming phrase - old dead white men. It is all part of the culture wars, of which perceived sexism and racism is a major player.
Click to expand...

on this, the bench and court is reticent about any moves, or it actually may be the legislature, reticent at moves to pardon or overturn convictions last century for sodomy or times when the jacks fitted up homosexuals.

actually, now I think of it, without re-reading this post by deltablues, i dont think my point is the perfect extrapolation of princples expounded in the post.[/QUOTE]
 
deltablues said:
Were we racist 50 years ago? The assumptions and trigger words in the thread title interest me in the sense that the themes here (race and sexism) are part of the overall meme thru which folk express themselves these days. What I mean is that we assume that we can judge by our standards of today the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.

This raises the concept of history. Unfortunately, the word "history" is being subverted by activists and their media facilitators as part of an attempt to reverse centuries of perceived (and actual) historic wrongs by engaging in deconstructive "narratives" to fit the various menus on the table in today's culture wars - ignoring the complexity of the historical reality by reference to those times, and relying on some kind of simple social theory. It can be a mistake to judge, by our standards of today, particularly on race, the past actions of folk who lived in different times to us and where society in those days had very different norms.

The neo-Marxist historians and activist academics in the literature and linguistics departments look at culture as being encoded in language that must change with the material conditions - as the social environment changes, so too then must the language constructs. They argue that each era has a language structure which determines the questions that people can ask and the answers they can receive. And as conditions change historically so do the mental tropes, thereby from a new perspective (i.e. the activists' perspective) rendering, among other things, the zeitgeist and literature of the past age an affront and ripe for revisionism.

They follow the wacky French philosopher Jacques Derrida's belief that if one breaks apart the so-called hidden hierarchies in language terms, one can open up a "lacuna" in understanding and free the mind of the reader/critic, baby. Problem is that there is no lacuna - it is a device to re-write or leverage history to fit contemporary agendas.

This re-writing of history is all part of deconstructionalism, in accordance with Michel Foucault's New Historicism theory, where modern "narratives" are sought to be imposed upon the literature/history of past ages. This is the creed of the moral movement and their fellow travelers - always searching for causes and wars (war on this, war on that) in order to stick it to The Man under the guise of seeking to reverse centuries of perceived historic wrongs.

One basic example (linguistic-wise and history-wise) of this mindset is the charming phrase - old dead white men. It is all part of the culture wars, of which perceived sexism and racism is a major player.
Click to expand...

and in reply, 1964 indigenous Australians still couldn't vote in queensland. in fact the first right to vote for indigenous Australians had only existed for 2 years. Many states still had protection act's. But by all means do go on, I'm eager to here how this is all some grand re-invention by the evil communists.
 
Interesting angle from OP, but I would probably reject the premise. Sexism has been around longer and has been more prevalent than racism I would suggest.

The history books are full of explorers, travellers, traders and so on who had to deal with people of different races. Sure there would have been racism of varying degrees among all of this, but one also notes that all of these important historical figures are men.
 
medusala said:
Also see golf. People are prone to saying men are better only because of power. See putting averages.
Click to expand...

This is a good example. And it does not take too much thought to see why women's putting averages are worse. I don't believe it is from being inherently more unco than men - it is simply because a whole lot more men play golf at all levels, meaning it is much more competitive, and thus much harder to reach the top level.

You simply have to be better at all aspects of a game to be on the Pro Tour as a man than as a woman.

If/as more and more women play more golf at all levels, we will see putting averages improve accordingly.
 
Lester Burnham said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Quota hiring policies, female only representative bodies, female only mentoring programmes.

The corporate job market is ridiculously skewed towards women

(At the entrance level anyway)

By claiming that males find it easier to progress up the corporate ladder they cut males out of the bottom of the ladder through those practices mentioned above.

Whilst the majority of partners and ceo's etc may be male, in the corporate world (law is my specific area of knowledge) the numbers are 7-8 females in every 10 graduate positions.
 
FlowersByIrene said:
Quota hiring policies, female only representative bodies, female only mentoring programmes.

The corporate job market is ridiculously skewed towards women

(At the entrance level anyway)

By claiming that males find it easier to progress up the corporate ladder they cut males out of the bottom of the ladder through those practices mentioned above.

Whilst the majority of partners and ceo's etc may be male, in the corporate world (law is my specific area of knowledge) the numbers are 7-8 females in every 10 graduate positions.
Click to expand...

I work in a large company and see the same policies enacted above entrance level. There is a perceived gender imbalance in people employed at management levels. Of course they do not factor in significant time spent on maternity leave that means women of nominally the same time of employment have less experience. They do not factor in that many women choose not to take positions that would entail them working longer hours away from their family. They do not factor in that some roles are more suited to men than women, and vice versa - look at the relative number of male and female graduates in different degree subjects.

To address this perceived imbalance, it has become policy in my company that every job advertised has to accept at least one female be interviewed, regardless of relative skills and experience. Also, there has to be a female on the interview panel. They are careful to couch the policy in terms of 'equality' but it's clear that females will be given preference over men for advertised positions.

And of course the big unmentionable. How many women sleep their way into good jobs? I have seen this many times in my career. An attractive female sleeps with the boss and nek minute she gets promoted, often above her level of competence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peetoo
Society/Culture Lucy Letby. Whistleblowers were harassed by authorities
Replies
1
Views
402
peetoo
peetoo
T
  • Locked
Society/Culture Playgrounds are sexist in Victoria
Replies
3
Views
479
Gethelred
Gethelred
ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
582
Gethelred
Gethelred
Alite
Politics Japan has gone it’s own way on fighting inflation
Replies
12
Views
672
undefined
undefined
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
B
John Pilger - Year Zero
Replies
0
Views
440
Ballarat Bob
B
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Society/Culture The seemingly growing anti 'western' sentiment in 'western' societies.
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
541
Views
13K
barreness
barreness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top