|
ManOeuvre -> RE: 'If you're a young, white straight man today you're in trouble' (7/2/2016 11:51:13 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
But hey, if we're going to run with the idea that being a victim is nothing more than an assumed status, then I assume these young, straight, heterosexual males would be more than happy to have us rewrite our laws thereby swapping the positions of these poor, victim-status-less white guys with those happy go lucky gays who have life handed to them on a silver platter. What better way to prove the correctness of their position than by demonstrating it, right?
JeffBC, I would assume that by "Our" laws, you're referring to the laws of Canada?
Every word in every current statute in Canada where there is any mention of sex, race, or sexual orientation is either a censure against discrimination (You'd better not be ____ist!) or is a proactive measure to increase either the participation or the status of one or another designated minority groups (Affirmative action, Canadian bacon style).
There was a time when there were laws on the books officially discriminating against various groups, including such classics as the "Chinese Exclusion Act", various official means of putting the lands roamed by the copper-toned into white settlers' hands, an official policy of taking Aboriginal children from their homes and placing them in brutal boarding schools which were run like P.G. Wodehouse school stories ghost-written by Kim-Il-Sung. My children's great-grandfather was interned during WWII on account of a perceived potential blood loyalty to an emperor of a land whose sunrise he'd never seen. For the swarthiest of folks we had segregation preceded by a late franchise (1947 I believe) preceded by a ban on African immigration preceded by slavery. The loyalest of British subjects, the beturbanned Sikhs who have taken figurative and literal flak for every monarch since the foremost Victorian, were routinely denied entry. This must have felt especially capricious by the passengers of the Komagata Maru which had made every effort to comply with the onerous and odious continuous passage regulations. Women didn't get the vote until 1918, a full 51 years after men did!
We could go on, and I've got more than a little Louis Riel blood in me which I keep on a light simmer.
But...... at present, I don't think there are any laws that one would call discriminatory, and if you were to oil up and stretch the term discriminatory to include its positive senses, then there is certainly no discrimination in law in favour of straight white men.
JeffBC, I don't think anybody (and I'm certainly not) is asserting that those happy-go-lucky gays have life handed to them on a silver platter. I think the issue raised in the OP's link is that discussions themselves can be too easily vetoed, and the the straight white male is the only speaker without such a veto.
Gentlemen and ladies, I've taken your advice and looked at the OP's body of "work" on collarchat. It is ineloquent. It is predictable. Worst of all it is mostly boring. The tone and focus of the posts, hell, even the screen name doesn't just invite but begs suspicion and speculation as to his motives and biological age. It doesn't mean that he can't ever have a point. If you find enough spare minutes in your day to click on his thread and hit reply, I think you'll have a better time of it if you take his arguments at their best, and lend them whichever interpretation brings them at first closest to your own; that's how you broadside someone.
|
|
|
|
