Citation Needed: “This sociologist says ‘reverse discrimination’ is a paranoid myth. Here’s why he’s wrong.”

Interesting (video, 24:05). Colin Wright also covers the story of the 23-year-old transgendered Robin (Robert) Westman, who killed two and left more than a dozen injured at a Catholic school in Minneapolis a few days ago.

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.

Our YouTube channel is here.

3 thoughts on “Citation Needed: “This sociologist says ‘reverse discrimination’ is a paranoid myth. Here’s why he’s wrong.”

  1. Reverse discrimination ? Oxymoronic, surely ? Discrimination is discrimination, whichever way it goes. Implicit in that term is an arrogance and narcissism that defines discrimination as being exclusive to certain groups. That, ironically is discrimination in itself.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The explicit “Affirmative Action” in the US is surprising given the Constitution. Certainly many American practices are illegal in this country. The problem here is that people in HR and Politics assume the Equality Act allows American style direct discrimination. Men and women here presume the Act’s protected characteristic is “women” when it is, as the Supreme Court confirmed, it is in fact “Sex”. There have in fact been a steady trickle of successful actions by men discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Unfortunately to enact the law complainants need to initiate cases, which requires both funds and the knowledge that men can invoke the Act. The results of such successful cases include the reduction in standards in many public services, because you can’t make men meet higher fitness standards than are “required” of the job. And to ensure women can be recruited into services (including the martial services) the “required” standards have to be set low. If men were better informed and had access to support , in a similar way to various women’s rights organisations, then a great deal of discriminatory practices would crumble, as they did in the RAF in the recent scandal of manipulating recruitment to exclude “too many white men”.

    Colin Wright points out that in the US civil rights are rights an individual has, not a “group”, the same principle applies here. Whatever the overall patterns the individual has to be treated as just that , not a member of a “group”. The one exception is in the selection of Candidates for Election by political parties, in this one situation direct discrimination against men is permitted in the form of “all women shortlists”.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Andy Antifeminist Cancel reply