Does True Feminism Exist Anymore?

[Tubbsalot]

Blah blah blah MRA circle jerk.

Fourth post (i.e. third reply). Three minutes after OP. Asserts that there's a "circle jerk". I mean, that's just nuts.

He was right though, wasn't he? The thread immediately turned into a cesspool of feminazi-manhater-misandrist bullshit, didn't it? An outcome which was pretty easily predicted.

[Llamalandia]

I'm quite sure the christians can ramble about early christians and how they were persecuted nice people.
It doesn't change anything.
They organized, and the organizations warped the doctrine.
Feminists are no different.

That they emerged to fight real prejudice against women is largely undisputed by me.
What i'm disputing is that, as it dawned on us that sexism was a legit thing, and a big social problem that effects both genders, the movement became irrevocably corrupted by female chauvinists, and female supremacists, and warped the ideology and language beyond recognition.
There was no chance to keep these people out of the movement before we came to such a realization.
At this point, people identifying as a feminist are inviting ridicule and scorn by identifying with a label that is predominantly perceived as a sexist label, and lends power and credibility to sexists.

I don't care about early feminism.
This post is just fucking nonsensical.
You don't catch Republicans telling people who say
"You guys are sure pretty racist."
"Hey, you should go read up why our ideology was founded!"

Well, occasionally you do, but we rightly dismiss it as claptrap.

You've missed my point - which I suppose isn't surprising, given that I only posted one sentence. Early feminism was defined by its goal of sexual equality, which I'm sure you agree is admirable. So was the feminism after that. And after that. It never stopped being the case. Almost everyone supports sexual equality now; that means most people are feminists. There are certainly idiotic radicals who have labelled themselves 'feminist' and gone on a crusade to castrate all men or whatever, but that doesn't mean all feminists are now man-hating caricatures.

Incidentally, you're not saying "christian organisations are bad" - you're saying "all christians are bad." I'm sure you'll recognise the weaknesses of that assertion.

Idon't think there's really anyone here disputing that for sure first and quitel likely second wave feminism are pretty legit. The issue is modern feminism and whether or not it follows the same ideals or serves any useful beneficial purpose in society. I haven't really run across many third wave feminists who fit that description. Of course in the mideast there are still tons of first and second wave fights to waged. But in western societies it mostly just seems to be internet pseudo celebrity feminists harping on about how bad and misogynistic video games are. Or how there aren't enough strong women in Hollywood movies.

We've covered most of the distance, certainly. Which means it's now a relatively minor issue. Which means people who define their lives according to their extreme stance on this minor issue are probably slightly fucked up. That shouldn't tar all feminists.

ok but then to the OP's point why does the UK have quotas based on gender for example. Shouldn't men and women be considered on equal terms for employment as police officers and therefor held to the exact same standards. Modern feminists would argue that we need affirmative action because women are still kept down by shadowy patriarchal oppressors who want to see them fail.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm quite sure the christians can ramble about early christians and how they were persecuted nice people.
It doesn't change anything.
They organized, and the organizations warped the doctrine.
Feminists are no different.

That they emerged to fight real prejudice against women is largely undisputed by me.
What i'm disputing is that, as it dawned on us that sexism was a legit thing, and a big social problem that effects both genders, the movement became irrevocably corrupted by female chauvinists, and female supremacists, and warped the ideology and language beyond recognition.
There was no chance to keep these people out of the movement before we came to such a realization.
At this point, people identifying as a feminist are inviting ridicule and scorn by identifying with a label that is predominantly perceived as a sexist label, and lends power and credibility to sexists.

I don't care about early feminism.
This post is just fucking nonsensical.
You don't catch Republicans telling people who say
"You guys are sure pretty racist."
"Hey, you should go read up why our ideology was founded!"

Well, occasionally you do, but we rightly dismiss it as claptrap.

You've missed my point - which I suppose isn't surprising, given that I only posted one sentence. Early feminism was defined by its goal of sexual equality, which I'm sure you agree is admirable. So was the feminism after that. And after that. It never stopped being the case. Almost everyone supports sexual equality now; that means most people are feminists. There are certainly idiotic radicals who have labelled themselves 'feminist' and gone on a crusade to castrate all men or whatever, but that doesn't mean all feminists are now man-hating caricatures.

Incidentally, you're not saying "christian organisations are bad" - you're saying "all christians are bad." I'm sure you'll recognise the weaknesses of that assertion.

Idon't think there's really anyone here disputing that for sure first and quitel likely second wave feminism are pretty legit. The issue is modern feminism and whether or not it follows the same ideals or serves any useful beneficial purpose in society. I haven't really run across many third wave feminists who fit that description. Of course in the mideast there are still tons of first and second wave fights to waged. But in western societies it mostly just seems to be internet pseudo celebrity feminists harping on about how bad and misogynistic video games are. Or how there aren't enough strong women in Hollywood movies.

We've covered most of the distance, certainly. Which means it's now a relatively minor issue. Which means people who define their lives according to their extreme stance on this minor issue are probably slightly fucked up. That shouldn't tar all feminists.

It's a difficult assertion to be sure.
Nonetheless it's one I often stand by, with some qualifiers.

If feminists don't want me to think they are evil scumbags whenever they identify as a feminist, and don't want me to judge them based on their organized efforts, then they should make new organizations.

As it is, all I see is a bunch of people spouting vaguely pro-female rhetoric, who when they organize, immediately go fucking crazy and advocate for misandrist policies.
It's an echo chamber/hug box problem.

These people were never arguing for gender equality. an echo chamber for gender equality leads to radical gender equality proposals.
They were arguing for female rights/power. When they enter echo chambers, they get more and more extreme in those demands.
That's the problem.

If you want me to not view you as sexists, then you should organize and resist this problem that keeps occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)


Similarly, i'm sure you'll agree, that by donating money to christian or feminist organizations, people are culpable for their actions with that money.
Likewise, identfiying as a particular type of christian despite not attending services distorts that groups power in politics, the same is true of feminism.

[Llamalandia]

Fourth post (i.e. third reply). Three minutes after OP. Asserts that there's a "circle jerk". I mean, that's just nuts.

He was right though, wasn't he? The thread immediately turned into a cesspool of feminazi-manhater-misandrist bullshit, didn't it? An outcome which was pretty easily predicted.

Even if that's the case this could simply be an instance of a self-fulfilling prophecy could it not?

[Divair2]

Yes. As Feminazism.


Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

That doesn't make your view any more acceptable.

[Betoni]

From the wikipage: "WILPF envisions a world free of violence, poverty, pollution and dominance. WILPF stands for equality of all people in a world free of racism, sexism and homophobia; the building of a constructive peace through world disarmament; and the changing of government priorities to meet human needs. [1]"

If you look at their actual accomplishments, you'll see that regardless of any lip service they pay, this is a nonsense on their part. To advocate requires more than lipservice.

Sorry, I'm more inclined to take their word for it than yours.

[Llamalandia]

Yes. As Feminazism.


Oh and before you bash me like you did to the poster on the first page, remember THIS:

I'm a GIRL!

That doesn't make your view any more acceptable.

It lends her arguably more credibility because as a female what reason would she have to argue against here own self-interest. Any male in the thread may arguably be open to a charge of being purely self serving in their posts, but surely it's difficult to find many females who would argue against feminism because it was somehow in their own self interest to do so.

[Divair2]

That doesn't make your view any more acceptable.

It lends her arguably more credibility because as a female what reason would she have to argue against here own self-interest. Any male in the thread may arguably be open to a charge of being purely self serving in their posts, but surely it's difficult to find many females who would argue against feminism because it was somehow in their own self interest to do so.

Self-harm is a thing. Assuming said poster is female, which is very unlikely.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you look at their actual accomplishments, you'll see that regardless of any lip service they pay, this is a nonsense on their part. To advocate requires more than lipservice.

Sorry, I'm more inclined to take their word for it than yours.

You aren't required to take my word for it. Go find any accomplishment of theirs that benefits males and i'll take them seriously. That isn't taking their word for it.

[Llamalandia]

If you look at their actual accomplishments, you'll see that regardless of any lip service they pay, this is a nonsense on their part. To advocate requires more than lipservice.

Sorry, I'm more inclined to take their word for it than yours.

As a conservative leaning libertarian, I'm not. It seems anymore feminist seems to be automatically also imply leftwing liberal hippie.

Got any freedom loving American conservative feminists groups for me perchance?

(Though arguably if we were to take the group in your example at their word, they do largely seem to fulfill the definition of true feminist. )

[Llamalandia]

It lends her arguably more credibility because as a female what reason would she have to argue against here own self-interest. Any male in the thread may arguably be open to a charge of being purely self serving in their posts, but surely it's difficult to find many females who would argue against feminism because it was somehow in their own self interest to do so.

Self-harm is a thing. Assuming said poster is female, which is very unlikely.

Well it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone lied on the internet. But self-harm through some kind of quasi misogynistic internet post doesn't really seem like a very likely thing to happen. Usually when I think self harm that means good ol' razor blade across the wrists type stuff.

[Divair2]

Self-harm is a thing. Assuming said poster is female, which is very unlikely.

Well it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone lied on the internet. But self-harm through some kind of quasi misogynistic internet post doesn't really seem like a very likely thing to happen. Usually when I think self harm that means good ol' razor blade across the wrists type stuff.

A common association which unfortunately blocks out the rest of self-harm scenarios.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone lied on the internet. But self-harm through some kind of quasi misogynistic internet post doesn't really seem like a very likely thing to happen. Usually when I think self harm that means good ol' razor blade across the wrists type stuff.

A common association which unfortunately blocks out the rest of self-harm scenarios.

They are identifying as a female.
That makes them female.
Unless you are arguing people are faking when they do that and should report based on genitals. (In case you are wondering, this is one of the major reasons I concluded that Gender is a nonsense concept, and should be vigorously opposed.)

[Tubbsalot]

ok but then to the OP's point why does the UK have quotas based on gender for example. Shouldn't men and women be considered on equal terms for employment as police officers and therefor held to the exact same standards. Modern feminists would argue that we need affirmative action because women are still kept down by shadowy patriarchal oppressors who want to see them fail.

For the same reason that the US has affirmative action. Less well-off groups tend to become trapped in a cycle of failure, and it might not be enough to simply give them the same opportunities as anyone else - this would tend to perpetuate existing inequalities, and therefore maintain racist or sexist attitudes. If you want to actually get rid of those attitudes, actively advancing those groups may be the most effective way to do it.

Of course, quotas are an extremely clumsy way to do it, and I don't know that I support them - I wouldn't know whether they're effective. But there's good, solid reasoning behind it, and it should be acknowledged as a legitimate move, even if it's not necessarily the right move.

It's a difficult assertion to be sure.
Nonetheless it's one I often stand by, with some qualifiers.

If feminists don't want me to think they are evil scumbags whenever they identify as a feminist, and don't want me to judge them based on their organized efforts, then they should make new organizations.

As it is, all I see is a bunch of people spouting vaguely pro-female rhetoric, who when they organize, immediately go fucking crazy and advocate for misandrist policies.
It's an echo chamber/hug box problem.

These people were never arguing for gender equality. an echo chamber for gender equality leads to radical gender equality proposals.
They were arguing for female rights/power. When they enter echo chambers, they get more and more extreme in those demands.
That's the problem.

If you want me to not view you as sexists, then you should organize and resist this problem that keeps occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)


Similarly, i'm sure you'll agree, that by donating money to christian or feminist organizations, people are culpable for their actions with that money.
Likewise, identfiying as a particular type of christian despite not attending services distorts that groups power in politics, the same is true of feminism.

I am a feminist. Are you suggesting I'm an evil scumbag, or do you not accept that I'm a feminist? There can be several different ideologies all referring to themselves by the same name. Why do you believe only ludicrous caricatures of humans should qualify?

I'm not going to start up a feminist activist organisation, not just because I don't have the required skills, but because I don't care that much. Does that mean I'm suddenly a feminazi, or does it mean you should re-evaluate your criteria for what makes a feminazi?

And why are you allowing an echo chamber to shape your opinion on a diverse group of people? If you did that with politics you'd hate absolutely everyone.

[Divair2]

A common association which unfortunately blocks out the rest of self-harm scenarios.

They are identifying as a female.
That makes them female.
Unless you are arguing people are faking when they do that and should report based on genitals. (In case you are wondering, this is one of the major reasons I concluded that Gender is a nonsense concept, and should be vigorously opposed.)

Or they're simply lying about their gender.

[Llamalandia]

Well it certainly wouldn't be the first time someone lied on the internet. But self-harm through some kind of quasi misogynistic internet post doesn't really seem like a very likely thing to happen. Usually when I think self harm that means good ol' razor blade across the wrists type stuff.

A common association which unfortunately blocks out the rest of self-harm scenarios.

Seriously. What are people psychologically self harm as well? Come on let's try to stay more in the realm of everyday ordinary experience and common sense shall we? (unless of course you were merely refering to other forms of physical self harm in which case yes, there are of course many, I merely picked one and what I thought to be one of the best known examples of physical self harm).

[Divair2]

A common association which unfortunately blocks out the rest of self-harm scenarios.

Seriously. What are people psychologically self harm as well? Come on let's try to stay more in the realm of everyday ordinary experience and common sense shall we? (unless of course you were merely refering to other forms of physical self harm in which case yes, there are of course many, I merely picked one and what I thought to be one of the best known examples of physical self harm).

There is such a thing as psychological self-harm, yes. I would know.

[Llamalandia]

ok but then to the OP's point why does the UK have quotas based on gender for example. Shouldn't men and women be considered on equal terms for employment as police officers and therefor held to the exact same standards. Modern feminists would argue that we need affirmative action because women are still kept down by shadowy patriarchal oppressors who want to see them fail.

For the same reason that the US has affirmative action. Less well-off groups tend to become trapped in a cycle of failure, and it might not be enough to simply give them the same opportunities as anyone else - this would tend to perpetuate existing inequalities, and therefore maintain racist or sexist attitudes. If you want to actually get rid of those attitudes, actively advancing those groups may be the most effective way to do it.

Of course, quotas are an extremely clumsy way to do it, and I don't know that I support them - I wouldn't know whether they're effective. But there's good, solid reasoning behind it, and it should be acknowledged as a legitimate move, even if it's not necessarily the right move.

It's a difficult assertion to be sure.
Nonetheless it's one I often stand by, with some qualifiers.

If feminists don't want me to think they are evil scumbags whenever they identify as a feminist, and don't want me to judge them based on their organized efforts, then they should make new organizations.

As it is, all I see is a bunch of people spouting vaguely pro-female rhetoric, who when they organize, immediately go fucking crazy and advocate for misandrist policies.
It's an echo chamber/hug box problem.

These people were never arguing for gender equality. an echo chamber for gender equality leads to radical gender equality proposals.
They were arguing for female rights/power. When they enter echo chambers, they get more and more extreme in those demands.
That's the problem.

If you want me to not view you as sexists, then you should organize and resist this problem that keeps occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)


Similarly, i'm sure you'll agree, that by donating money to christian or feminist organizations, people are culpable for their actions with that money.
Likewise, identfiying as a particular type of christian despite not attending services distorts that groups power in politics, the same is true of feminism.

I am a feminist. Are you suggesting I'm an evil scumbag, or do you not accept that I'm a feminist? There can be several different ideologies all referring to themselves by the same name. Why do you believe only ludicrous caricatures of humans should qualify?

I'm not going to start up a feminist activist organisation, not just because I don't have the required skills, but because I don't care that much. Does that mean I'm suddenly a feminazi, or does it mean you should re-evaluate your criteria for what makes a feminazi?

And why are you allowing an echo chamber to shape your opinion on a diverse group of people? If you did that with politics you'd hate absolutely everyone.

Depends if youre a third wave feminist your probably a scumbag if you consider yourself a second or first wave one well that's all well and good but isn't that rather like someone calling themselves an abolitionist still? I mean slavery's been outlawed for over a hundred years, seems like a date way to refer to yourself. Likewise since basically all of the important battlesof feminism have essentially been won in the western world (there's likely always to be some small residual sexism just as you can still occasionally find some racists in the deep south) isn't the moniker of feminist likewise dated?

[Betoni]

Sorry, I'm more inclined to take their word for it than yours.

You aren't required to take my word for it. Go find any accomplishment of theirs that benefits males and i'll take them seriously. That isn't taking their word for it.

So, I'd guess MRA's arent advocating for male benefits because they haven't accomplished anything that benefits males. Sounds about right..

If you are looking for accomplishments that only benefit males I don't think I can find one. However, demanding that an organization must have accomplished such to be considered "true" feminists seems a bit backwards. They have campaingned for peace and against discrimination in general regardless of the gender of its victim. For example they campaigned against apartheid: http://lib-1.lse.ac.uk/archivesblog/?p=5283#more-5283

Their work for peace has atleast been recognized around the world as they have a couple of Nobel peace laureates. Peace does benefit pretty much everybody.

[Ostroeuropa]

ok but then to the OP's point why does the UK have quotas based on gender for example. Shouldn't men and women be considered on equal terms for employment as police officers and therefor held to the exact same standards. Modern feminists would argue that we need affirmative action because women are still kept down by shadowy patriarchal oppressors who want to see them fail.

For the same reason that the US has affirmative action. Less well-off groups tend to become trapped in a cycle of failure, and it might not be enough to simply give them the same opportunities as anyone else - this would tend to perpetuate existing inequalities, and therefore maintain racist or sexist attitudes. If you want to actually get rid of those attitudes, actively advancing those groups may be the most effective way to do it.

Of course, quotas are an extremely clumsy way to do it, and I don't know that I support them - I wouldn't know whether they're effective. But there's good, solid reasoning behind it, and it should be acknowledged as a legitimate move, even if it's not necessarily the right move.

It's a difficult assertion to be sure.
Nonetheless it's one I often stand by, with some qualifiers.

If feminists don't want me to think they are evil scumbags whenever they identify as a feminist, and don't want me to judge them based on their organized efforts, then they should make new organizations.

As it is, all I see is a bunch of people spouting vaguely pro-female rhetoric, who when they organize, immediately go fucking crazy and advocate for misandrist policies.
It's an echo chamber/hug box problem.

These people were never arguing for gender equality. an echo chamber for gender equality leads to radical gender equality proposals.
They were arguing for female rights/power. When they enter echo chambers, they get more and more extreme in those demands.
That's the problem.

If you want me to not view you as sexists, then you should organize and resist this problem that keeps occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)


Similarly, i'm sure you'll agree, that by donating money to christian or feminist organizations, people are culpable for their actions with that money.
Likewise, identfiying as a particular type of christian despite not attending services distorts that groups power in politics, the same is true of feminism.

I am a feminist. Are you suggesting I'm an evil scumbag, or do you not accept that I'm a feminist? There can be several different ideologies all referring to themselves by the same name. Why do you believe only ludicrous caricatures of humans should qualify?

I'm not going to start up a feminist activist organisation, not just because I don't have the required skills, but because I don't care that much. Does that mean I'm suddenly a feminazi, or does it mean you should re-evaluate your criteria for what makes a feminazi?

And why are you allowing an echo chamber to shape your opinion on a diverse group of people? If you did that with politics you'd hate absolutely everyone.

I'd say you are sorely mistaken when identifying as a feminist, and if you want people not to think "Evil scumbag" when you go around identifying as a rapist, a murderer, or a nazi, then you shouldn't identify as one based on some magical interpretation of the word that the vast majority of persons reject.
Polls of the public show that the majority stand in favor of gender equality. The VAST majority do not identify as feminist.
In fact, you are more likely to identify as an ANTI-feminist if you support gender equality.
No matter how much they bray and whine, we are refusing to be conned by their nonsense, and it is sad that people like you are.
Because an echo chamber is useful for gauging peoples goals and objectives. If you throw social democrats in an echo chamber you end up with a regulated free market with welfare and some nationalization and lots of civil rights. You don't get them suddenly demanding we kill all the rich and become stalinists, because that was never their goal in the fist place.
Why do feminists frequently run into that problem?

[Llamalandia]

Seriously. What are people psychologically self harm as well? Come on let's try to stay more in the realm of everyday ordinary experience and common sense shall we? (unless of course you were merely refering to other forms of physical self harm in which case yes, there are of course many, I merely picked one and what I thought to be one of the best known examples of physical self harm).

There is such a thing as psychological self-harm, yes. I would know.

Well at any rate I don't wanna go down a total thread jack here. that said though how likely if this girl is infact a girl as she claims, how likely do really think that psychological self harm is the explanation for her post. I mean, just apply Occam's razor it's not that hard.

[Ostroeuropa]

You aren't required to take my word for it. Go find any accomplishment of theirs that benefits males and i'll take them seriously. That isn't taking their word for it.

So, I'd guess MRA's arent advocating for male benefits because they haven't accomplished anything that benefits males. Sounds about right..

If you are looking for accomplishments that only benefit males I don't think I can find one. However, demanding that an organization must have accomplished such to be considered "true" feminists seems a bit backwards. They have campaingned for peace and against discrimination in general regardless of the gender of its victim. For example they campaigned against apartheid: http://lib-1.lse.ac.uk/archivesblog/?p=5283#more-5283

Their work for peace has atleast been recognized around the world as they have a couple of Nobel peace laureates. Peace does benefit pretty much everybody.

The MRA's have raised funds for domestic abuse shelters for men.
They simply lack the pretension of being an equal rights cause. It's for that reason I don't hate them as much as the feminists.

It isn't backward. It's a fairly simple test. They claim to be for equal rights. Their track record shows otherwise.

[Betoni]

So, I'd guess MRA's arent advocating for male benefits because they haven't accomplished anything that benefits males. Sounds about right..

If you are looking for accomplishments that only benefit males I don't think I can find one. However, demanding that an organization must have accomplished such to be considered "true" feminists seems a bit backwards. They have campaingned for peace and against discrimination in general regardless of the gender of its victim. For example they campaigned against apartheid: http://lib-1.lse.ac.uk/archivesblog/?p=5283#more-5283

Their work for peace has atleast been recognized around the world as they have a couple of Nobel peace laureates. Peace does benefit pretty much everybody.

The MRA's have raised funds for domestic abuse shelters for men.
They simply lack the pretension of being an equal rights cause. It's for that reason I don't hate them as much as the feminists.

It isn't backward. It's a fairly simple test. They claim to be for equal rights. Their track record shows otherwise.

No it does not, as I've shown their work for univeral peace and against discrimination not only directed at women. You have not shown anything of their trackrecord, in fact, I doubt you have sufficent knowledge of it to make such claims. If you insist that their track record shows otherwise, the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

[Ostroeuropa]

The MRA's have raised funds for domestic abuse shelters for men.
They simply lack the pretension of being an equal rights cause. It's for that reason I don't hate them as much as the feminists.

It isn't backward. It's a fairly simple test. They claim to be for equal rights. Their track record shows otherwise.

No it does not as I've shown their work for univeral peace and against discrimination not only directed at women. You have not shown anything of their trackrecord, in fact I doubt you have sufficent knowledge of it to make such claims. If you insist that their track record shows otherwise the onus is on you to provide evidence of this.

That's untrue. Yours is the positive claim that requires evidence, namely, that the organization also campaigns for the rights of males.
I cannot provide evidence of an absence. You should know that. My claim stands as the default until proven otherwise.

A feminist organization will oppose a situation whereby women and men are being unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
It will oppose a situation where women are unfairly treated because women are being unfairly treated.
A situation where men are being unfairly treated?

Silence.
Or mockery.
Or inaction.

[North Yakistan]

Not only do quotas inherantly infringe on bussines's rights they are inherantly racist/sexist.

Firstly as soon as you say a bussines needs so many of one race you are greeting people different under the law based on race/sex.

Secondly by doing this you are also indirectly stating these people oils not otherwise get the job. Either your implying that all bussines owners/boss's/HR persons are racist/sexist or that these people are incapeable of getting the job themself.

And thirdly, Quotas inherantly limit the number of persons from certain races that can be employed. Companies have limited payroll, and if company A must employ 20% minority's out of 100 workers it sucks to be you 81st white male applicant.

Fourthly, this causes minority's and women to be greeted as a commodity. Minority women become the most prized of all because they can count bight ways.

And lastly, although it isn't inherant to the system in the real world quotas are never enforced on behalf of white males (or Asian males for that matter) because our nation is played with white guilt. A white man who filed a suit against a company that employs almost exclusively blacks would be a laughing stalk if not categorized as racist (somehow). In western society now minority's and women are given special treatments to make up for the poor conditions and descrimination their ancestors faced.

Quotas put people into boxes. And what's worse, based solely on race and gender. Productivity suffers and qualified applicants miss out on jobs.