This is true, but that doesnt mean that the minority being racist to the majority isnt a crime aswell. Which according to the dictionary is true, but in the real world, it isnt.
I wasn't aware I said anything that contradicts this I don't make a habit of going around referring to members of ethnic minorities by potentially offensive names (unless, of course, I'm on a level of friendship with them where I'm confident they won't be offended).
Sorry, but did you not read my earlier post. A group of Asian lads have been prosecuted under this law for an assault on a WHITE person.
Do you even remember what you're supposed to be arguing about? You said that sexism only goes one way. I showed that it goes both.
A far better example of 'accpetable' sexism is all women shortlists. I know the arguments for them, but still think any postion should be based on merit.
In the higher majority of cases than should, yes. If you think i have sat on a high chair and declared that in a country of 70 odd million people there is 100% no racism/sexism the other way, you are wrong.
Women are victims of sexism far more often than men, it's as simple as that. The law is very clear that it is equally punishable both ways, but it just happens that men are sexist more often.
You are probably right, and im not arguing against you on that. My point is that in the majority (not all, ofcourse it isnt all, in a population of 70 million people!) of cases, sexism/racism the other way is overlooked.
There's a "Rooney Rule" in the NFL where when interviewing head coach candidates, there must be at least one minority candidate interviewed. I'm not sure if this is really the best idea - good natured but a bit patronising when a team already knows who they want to hire but has to interview a member of an ethnic minority group as a formality.
Well If women would stay in the kitchen LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO they wouldn't be affected by sexism in the workplace or the sexist jokes that men make...
That is a bit silly on the political correctness front, though I should make clear that I don't think it's "political correctness gone mad!", just a little bit over the top on that one. You shouldn't have to make sure you include a minority so that you don't look racist. Loose Women has also been criticised for having an all-female panel, which I think is equally silly.
It does take the piss sometimes. In 2003 a team was fined $200,000 for not interviewing one, because the guy they had set up as their token minority interview dropped out so they just went "**** it, we'll hire the guy we were always going to hire rather than fannying about any more".
Personally I think the Rooney rule is well meaning, but I can understand how it could be considered a bit patronising. However, i've not heard any black NFL coaches complaining about it, and I wouldn't mind seeing a similar rule bought in in English football.
But then none really commend it. Not a single team or coach has come out saying "Yeah, it's because of the Rooney rule that I got hired/we hired him". The general thought is "well, it's pretty neat that nobody can be completely racist any more"
But why does the colour of the skin mean they should have an interview? Thats racism. Infact thats more racist than a team interviewing 5 white coaches who happen to be the best 5 in the world. Its admitting that race does matter, when it shouldnt.
Yeah, it is a bit cack handed. TBF if a company was interviewing for a post and they didn't interview any ethnic minority applicants for it, then I suppose the right way to go about it is to improve the selection process rather than saying, look, go get a black guy off the street, ask him a couple of questions and it's all hunky dory.
Yeah, patronising is a good word for it. At a stretch you could probably accuse the rule itself of being a little racist.
So is that rule in force because the NFL is predominantly white? (67% to be exact) So i assume there is a similar rule for interviewing white coaches in the NBA....? (77% black)
