Talk:Discrimination

This is the place to discuss views on discrimination

Example: Your country is under attack during wartime. The war is so ferocious that 80% of the combatants are killed. A law has been passed to forcefully conscript males between 18-24 years of age into the frontline, furthermore females are forbidden to participate. Question: Who is being discriminated against?

Answer: Anyone who has been singled out because of race, religion, GENDER, etc. without regard to their ability to help with your hypothetical crisis.

Human rights tend to be disregarded during war or natural disasters.

It would be more convincing to have an example in normal circumstances.

The government is discriminating against its own country, by inflicting a limit on the forces available to defend it. -- Smjg 15:12, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Historically cultures which sent their men off to war and kept the women safer have endured and tended to dominate for simple biological reasons. One surviving man can impregnate many women but each woman can only manage to bear one or two children a year on average. So a population can rebound in one or two generations so long as there are enough women. Discriminatory? Of course. Practical? Absolutely.

so in fact the war scenario (no "normal" livetime situation so not very suited imho) could be seen as a "no paradox" as the entity that discriminates *is* the government. To lower it down to the person level is just to let the frame circumstances (government) out of sight. About the (darwin) reproducability .. well then this common sense argument should be mentioned in the problem case and so make it clear what it is about .. a stretching of "normal" todays reality .. with 0-3 children per family Ebricca 11:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

rm'd anti-muslim & -arab fiction: =Religious Discrimination= grammar (nation & country != state); npov (dhimm laws not universal; palestinians not a mythical race; judaism legal in .sa); +.sa examples

The Paradox of Discrimination

this section needs some work -- LegCircus

---

Even here, the situation is complicated by possible indirect or institutionalized discrimination (...)

What does here exactly mean in this phrase? Sabbut 12:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest just axing the section; in addition to the poor grammar, it's kinda sorta wrong. I'll revise it later today, but the example given about the black musicians not having had access to adequate training until 1989 is more of an example of Total Discrimination. Total Discrimination = Past Discrimination + Current Circumstances. Institutional Discrimination = unconcious choices that restrict the choices of a subordinate group as part of the normal (often bureaucratic) functions of society. --S

(Also, the academic community widely considers the premise that it is based on to be NPOV, but i'll let that go since the academic community insofar as race, gender, and ethnicity is biased too. A bigger problem with the sections premise is that it should be clear who is discriminated against because there is an interplay between subordinate and dominant groups; Ergo: Motive makes the case. Some feminists would argue that the women are discriminated against regardless of the intentions of the policy-makers because their decision was based on stereotypical conceptions of gender roles, and also simply because the dominant group made the choice of who would fight without consulting the vast majority of fictional women in this hypothetical situation. Either way, discrimination is a very specific and multi-faceted phenomenon, and the more I think about it I really don't see what this hypothetical situation does positively; it seems more to just a broad musing on discrimination that is hardly factual.)