I think it's fairly obvious that Abercrombie goes for a certain look, to the point where the look is way more important than their job skills. There are a handful of girls from my chapter that work there, or at the A&F-owned Hollister, and all of them said that their job interview consisted of maybe one or two questions that had nothing to do with work experience (One of them was asked "What's your favorite alcoholic drink?" "What's your favorite bar?" and that was the extent of her interview). Basically the job interview was only a formality so that the hiring team could see who was the most attractive. Their interviews were group interviews, and in every case, the most attractive people got hired. And there are plenty of accounts from former A&F workers who claim that their managers told them to "only hire people you would f*ck" and the like.

The thing about their sketchy hiring practices is that, if most interviews are like the ones my sisters had, there's no way that A&F is going to be able to prove they're NOT racist. If very few non-whites are getting hired, and the job interviews don't relate to the job at all, A&F is going to have a very hard time pulling the "But we picked the best person for the job" card.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the allegations were true, given what I know of A&F, but the evidence is inconclusive so far.

This kinda a hijack but...

I don't feel bad for A&F getting sued because they have sued people themselves. As far as I know of, A&F has sued American Eagle 3 times for claiming that American Eagle is trying to "steal their style". American Eagle has won every case. (I would provide a link if I knew one. But I worked at American Eagle for 2 years and corporate would send us stuff to the store letting us know that we beat them again; so that is how I know that)

I think its dumb. :rolleyes:

Also as a disclaimer... I know AE and A&F are also stuck in the same catagory but AE really is a good company and has more decent prices for its clothes. Also AE actually believes in customer service (as a company; I'm sure it can be a case by case basis) compared to being a 'brand rep' (i.e. don't help anyone) at Abercrombie.

I mean yeah American Eagle is a t-shirt and jeans type of store but still an average price of a t-shirt at AE is $15.50 where at A&F it is at least $24.50 for something very similar.

But now that I don't work at AE anymore I don't shop there as much. (my all time fav. store is J.Crew. it just makes sense!)

/end mini hijack :) :)

SERIOUSLY -- I mean this is EXACTLY how I feel!!

Ya know, here's something else to consider: If A+F requires their employees to wear their merchandise while on the job, doesn't that descriminate against people of non-average size? (i.e. short people, very tall people, overweight, etc.) I personally have problems wearing clothes not cut for petite sizes because I'm 5'2". My little sister is gorgeous, but she's well over 200 lbs. AF doesn't sell anything over a 12 or 14. My cousin is 6'9" (ha, where did I come from??) and lord knows he couldn't wear anything from there. So we're unemployable from their standpoint? That's something to think about. Good looks do not always equal good brain/good work ethic.

I can't fit in A&F's clothes either and I'm only 5'5, 125. I'm sorry that I actually have boobs and a derriere :rolleyes:

Now, as much as I hate to spend buttloads on clothes, AE's jeans fit me like a glove! I usually buy my jeans from Ross or Kohl's, but every now and then I'll fork out the cash for a pair from AE because they are tailored so well.

GC lawyers, please feel free to correct me, but I don't think body size is a protected class in most jurisdictions.

:confused:

I worked at A&F for a few months during the summer between my sophomore and junior year in college. Almost every employee was greek. My friend (a TriDelta) told me to come in and interview for the job. The manager asked two questions. The first one being if I have ever worked in retail before. The second question was which sorority I was apart of. I was hired that very day.
We all use to laugh about the interviewing process. It was a joke. If you looked good, you were asked two questions tops and were hired. If you didn't look good, it was a slightly more rigurous interview and you probably wouldn't have gotten the job.
My manager use to stand out in front of the UCF student union recruiting girls and guys who walked by wearing their greek letters.
I stayed for only two months. Working there put me in debt. You have to buy their clothing and it is EXPENSIVE even with the discount. Everytime the got a new clothing line in, you were required to buy more clothes that matched the new line. There were specific uniform guidelines. Now, there were about 50 employees so we each got about 6-18 hours a week and got paid $6 an hour. So, imagine earning about $120 a week (which was my average) and then needing to buy the A&F employee "uniform" about ever 2 weeks. Every two weeks, I would drop $500 on clothing to wear to work. Every employee did the same. A&F loses no money on salaries. Absolutely ridiculous. The slogan was "Abercrombie isn't a job...it's a hobby."

No, because at present, size isn't a legally protected status in the way that race and gender are.

Edited to add: Some jurisdictions in the US allow challenges based on size discrimination -- San Francisco has such a law on its books -- but it's not widespread in the US, and I don't think it's on the books in Canada.

last summer i hear that they had to pull thong underwear from their abercrombie store(u know the one for kids) that said sexy and vixen on the front...ok how gross is the idea of a nine year old in a thong that says sexy on it...sometimes this company goes way to far.

Though not surprising, this lawsuit is ridiculous. The company is targeted towards the avg college kid. They target an audience and wish to convey an image. Is it so wrong to choose to hire the look of people to whom you target? Hire people that look and seem really cool, and people might seem them and say damn, i like their style...i want to look like that. Isn't that essentially the concept that glamour magazines work on?

Also, the company does go a little far, but that is how style has come to where it is. By pushing limits you can find out how far you can go. I'm not sying it's good, but overall they're inventive, and we all know they've patterned what we call style

I think there's a difference between an "image" and the context of the lawsuit.

Someone mentioned earlier something about Hot Topic. Anyone can put on some eyeliner and have that "look" ... but with a place like A+F, you can't just do something like that. Sure you could go to their store and spend thousands of dollars on clothes but you would never quite look like the waif models in the pictures.

At least that's my take on it.

That's what I was just going to say. If you're a crunchy granola type who wants to work at Sephora, you can slap on some makeup and pretty clothes and you'd at least have a chance at getting hired. If you're a preppy kid who wants to work at Hot Topic, you can put on some black clothes, some chains and some eyeliner and have a fighting chance. But if you're less-than-pretty and you want to work at A&F, you can't do anything short of major plastic surgery. There's a different between requiring a certain clothing style to work at a store and requiring a certain "look."

A&F is perhaps the most obvious utilizer of the "living advertisement," in that the employees in their store are intended to the serve the same purpose as their models. But what if every business decided to adopt this concept? People who were ugly wouldn't be able to get a job. That's why anti-discrimination laws were put in place to begin with -- so that people couldn't get passed over for jobs for something that had no influence on their ability to perform the tasks needed for the job. Being gorgeous has no influence on whether or not you can ring up clothes and fold sweaters.

I think that along with this lawsuit, we're going to see some kind of discussion on whether or not the "living advertisement" theory is valid. If Abercrombie claims that its employees serve the same purpose as its models, it is basically claiming that looks-ism (and in many cases, racism -- if blacks and Asians and Hispanics don't possess "the A&F look" they're SOL) is a valid basis for hiring policies, and this could set a precedent (either in favor or against) for other cases too.

But what this practice shows is that Abercrombie assumes that the 'average college kid' is not a person of color. Statistics aside (yeah, I know there are more white folks in University than people of color), this policy can be seen as sending the message that "You're not welcome at Abercrombie & Fitch."

I was reading a news story today about how major companies (like Procter and Gamble) are stepping up their efforts to do more 'tailored' advertising within ethnic communities. You know how you can watch Friends and see a McDonald's commercial that has mostly white people in it, but turn over to UPN to watch Girlfriends, and the McDonalds ads are filled with Blacks and Latinos? In the article, someone was quoted as saying that people of color view things like this differently than white folks; in essence, a white person can look at an ad that has women of color and white women in it and say "what a group of beautiful women", whereas a person of color will look at the ad and say "ah, there's someone in there who looks like me, this company must care about my community." It might be a nonsense lawsuit, but the feeling of exclusion is very, very real for some folks and shouldn't be dismissed.

But what do I know? I'm too damn old and have too much booty for Abercrombie anyway. :D

This is very important. Personally, it wouldn't surprise me at all if A&F is stark raving guilty. It's obvious that they have created an image for college students with more money (or credit) than taste and the high schoolers who want to look like them--it's just HOW far they have taken the pursuit of the look that may be illegal. Call it "jackpot justice" if you want, but discrimination on the basis of race is against the law. If you applied at Hot Topic and you were qualified, you could probably be hired--I know plenty of forty-somethings and preppies who worked there!

It seems that to A&F, the "average college kid" is white, good-looking in a certain way, is in a fraternity or sorority, and has the desire to spend $40 on a long-sleeved tee--I guess after four years at one of the best universities in the nation, I don't know many "average college kids." Too bad.

Did I mention that I think the clothes suck? Give me a J.Crew or Benetton any day!

I will get flamed, but It is up to the Employer who is hired to work for them , not the entire Damn Govt and Racial Groups!

I get so sick and tired of being told that a business should hire so many differnt persuasions!

When I had My previous business, I had 2 white and 3 black , 1 latino and 3 Female workers, we were all friends and would go out after closeing and have drinks and play pool! We would meet at each others houses to do a little BBQ and relaxing!

Right now, I am working the whole thing myself 6/11s simply for the fact that most people who come in need a haircut, shave, and decent clothes! I lost my only and best help because of racial personage running her off!

Being a small business owner does not give anyone of you the right to tell me I have to hire someone because of race or gender! If you think you can then you and the US Govt. may kiss my unwashed ASS!

Over do rightous people make me sick at my stomache!!!!



:mad:

HUGE PET PEEVE OF MINE HERE....sorry to rant but I get so freakin' pissed off when I see WHITE used as a color to describe a race of people, and then something supposedly more PC (such as "person of color" or "asian-american" or what-have-you) to describe another race of people. I will preach it till the day I die...if you are going to use WHITE for one group then use BLACK/BROWN/GREY/PURPLE/etc. to describe the other group. Otherwise, you should use Caucasian and African-American (or whatever the case may be). It is, in my never-humble opinion, discriminatory and degrading to call someone "white" when you use a "PC" term for someone else.

And yes, I can PROUDLY say that when I see a group of "beautiful women" in an ad that I will say to myself "what a group of beautiful women" --- I will not say "oh, there aren't enough WHITE people in the group so they must be anti-white and I'm not going to shop there" -- I don't operate that way and its pretty sh*%%y that other people DO act that way, but then will be the first in the line that reads:

"SUE HERE - Please take a number and your lawsuit will be filed accordingly..."

(oh, and I am also proud to say that I am too old and have too much of everything to work/shop at A&F!)

It isn't a bad thing that they act like that -- in fact, it's completely natural.

In my women's studies class, our professor put us through the following exercise: spend one entire day going through your normal activities and thinking how your race relates to how you perform each one. In other words, you should be thinking about how your race relates to watching TV, eating dinner, brushing your teeth, etc. The point of this experiment? Most of us white kids had a pretty hard time trying to think of how our race relates to, say, waiting at the bus stop. But the non-whites said the experiment was easy for them because they already go through life being aware of how their race relates to every little thing they do.

Basically, seeing a bunch of white women in a TV ad isn't going to surprise anybody because it's the status quo. But when you see something that goes against the status quo -- a similar commercial, only with black women -- you're going to take notice . . . especially if you fall into the group of people who are aware of how their race affects everything (i.e. minorities).

I think there are a whole hell of a lot of us white people out there, while we're usually not racist, take the priviledge of not having to worry about how our race affects things for granted. People of color don't have that priviledge.

See above rant on WHITE and PEOPLE OF COLOR. By the way, y'all - I am not white. A little on the light side yes, but then again, nobody down South has seen the sun for about 9 months! If I could get skinny by watching it rain, I'd be a size -30 by now!

Anyway - I don't take anything for granted - I have been put in the position of being discriminated against for being Caucasian - but some people think that that is perfectly okay.

Seriously - this sounds like sarcasm, but its not intended to be - what is the deal with "women's issues" classes? Are there also "men's issues" classes? I guess the "me" in me says "can't we just not look at a person for the skin, genitalia, hair, etc. and have just people" -- does everything have to be put in a category.

I really get offended by "women's history month" because there is not a "men's history month" -- why discriminate against the men in this country/world that have done great things? I would rather be "judged" as great in the whole scheme of things, than being a tag-line added because some woman felt like woman-kind (or womyn-kind...geez :rolleyes: ) was being "held back" since they didn't have their very own month of recognition. I don't want that for my kids - I want them to grow up knowing that everyone possesses a special quality that makes them "them" -- not that they need to judge people based on appearance, etc.

I have said it before and I will say it again -- race/sex will always matter to *some people* even though they are the ones bitching the loudest that it shouldn't....think on that one - it really makes sense if you read it right.

Maybe we are getting down to something here AXOAlum!!:)

I am like you, I look at advertising, and say damn are they the neat great looking people!

If they are not ad ready they should not be in Ads, I dont see what the color had to do with it!

If I said I never dated a Latino, African-American, or Asian, I would be a liar! Yes, I have! Oh yes the Honkey Caucausian!

I to get so tired of the PC of What the US Govy Tells us who to like because of race and Color and Creed!

What does that mean now that we cannot say GOD or anything else!:mad:

Rambling and getting Tired!!!

Good nite Tom!!!!:D

Tom, I think you missed the point. This thread is not about affirmative action, but rather should it be within a companies right to hire employees that fit a certain look rather than on ability?
If A & F is using hiring practices that revolve around a certain look (which appears not to include minorities) rather than ability, then I would say that they are discriminating, and that is illegal.

As a small business owner, wouldn't you rather hire someone who had the ability to do the task they are assigned to do or hire someone who fits a certain look you're going for even if they are a few bricks short of a load?

Originally posted by AXO Alum
See above rant on WHITE and PEOPLE OF COLOR.

I don't see the point to using "Caucasian" instead of "white" (or for that matter, "African-American" instead of black) because I don't see one as any more PC than the other. I just use "white" and "black" because they're shorter to write. :) Same for "people of color" or "minorities" in place of "Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders and multiracial people."

Anyway - I don't take anything for granted - I have been put in the position of being discriminated against for being Caucasian - but some people think that that is perfectly okay.

I'm of the mindset that very few people who claim they were "discriminated against for being Caucasian" were actually discriminated against -- they just had a priviledge that was taken away from them when they didn't necessarily deserve it in the first place. On a similar note, men complained that they were being discriminated against when women joined them in the work force because women were taking the jobs that they thought "rightfully belonged to them." In reality, they were just holding jobs that should have belonged to women years and years ago, and now that the women were finally demanding equality the men felt like they were losing out on something when in reality, they had only prospered off a system that unfairly benefitted them for years and years. In my opinion, the same thing goes for minorities in this country. However, I realize this is a fairly liberal viewpoint and not everybody agrees with it.

In all honesty, I could probably claim that I have been "discriminated against for being Caucasian" too . . . but since the average white person probably faces said discrimination a handful of times in their lifetime and the average black person faces it constantly, I don't really feel like I have a right to b*tch.

Seriously - this sounds like sarcasm, but its not intended to be -what is the deal with "women's issues" classes? Are there also "men's issues" classes? I guess the "me" in me says "can't we just not look at a person for the skin, genitalia, hair, etc. and have just people" -- does everything have to be put in a category.

This is really a subject for another thread, but I'll answer it here. Yes, there are also "men's studies" classes, although they are less common than women's studies classes. There are also classes labeled "gender studies" which deal with both, as well as with sexuality. The majority of women's studies classes deal with the way men and women interact, though, not just with the issues that women face. (Some deal with only one -- for example, there is a women's studies class at my school which deals with women's health issues, covering eating disorders, menstruation, pregnancy, etc. -- that class covers mostly "women's issues." Most of the other women's studies classes cover the interaction between men and women, as well as "women's issues" and "men's issues." The one I took also covered sexuality and race, which are very integrated with feminism.) I agree with you that, on one hand, we should just look at people for what they are. Unfortunately, on the other hand, there are TONS and TONs of social issues that come into play and make that impossible. The point of women's studies classes is to break down the social issues so that we can all do a better job of seeing people for what they really are.

I really get offended by "women's history month" because there is not a "men's history month" -- why discriminate against the men in this country/world that have done great things? I would rather be "judged" as great in the whole scheme of things, than being a tag-line added because some woman felt like woman-kind (or womyn-kind...geez :rolleyes: ) was being "held back" since they didn't have their very own month of recognition. I don't want that for my kids - I want them to grow up knowing that everyone possesses a special quality that makes them "them" -- not that they need to judge people based on appearance, etc.

I would prefer an integrated curriculum that covers both the achievements and contributions of men and women . . . however, as normal curriculums (especially in elementary/middle school) focus overwhelming on men's contributions, I would rather there be one month set aside for women than no months.

I have said it before and I will say it again -- race/sex will always matter to *some people* even though they are the ones bitching the loudest that it shouldn't....think on that one - it really makes sense if you read it right.

I think this is mostly because those people are trying to retain the culture associated with their race or sex without retaining the stereotypes, and it's a difficult thing to do. There's something to be said for seeing black/white/whatever as all equal, but I think that most people are trying to get to that "equal" status without throwing out their culture and heritage. Being equal is not the same as being the same.

Wow, that was long.

Very eloquently put sugar&spice :)

...and very articulate and well thought out!

And you just proved the author's (and my) point vividly.

And FWIW - I use the term "people of color" because in a world where the majority of people are brown/yellow/black, the term "minority" is a misnomer. I usually say "of the caucasian persuasion" when talking about white folks, but I didn't want to get flamed for that. ;)

But well worth the read.

I am one who uses Black or White

First, it is shorter
Second, I have never set foot in Africa a day in my life
Third, I have YET to tell anyone to "kiss my African American ass[/b]

I have told someone to kiss my natural black ass though! :D

Sorry had to go off topic! :D

Sugar & Spice...
 

I just want to commend you for explaining your viewpoints so clearly and eloquently--I don't think you could have explained your thoughts any more clearly.

At any rate: African American vs. Black. Each person has their personal preference. I used to be okay with AA, because I understood why it was created (provide black folks living in America a history and heritage to reseach and explore culturally). However, saying AA excludes the "black" Latinos, Africans, Carribeans, Haitians and other folks throughout the diaspora living in the US who are not American. As such, I use the term black. I also use the term "white." I respect whatever folks chose to call themselves, because it simply isn't that hard to remember people's preferences unless you're just being obstinate.

On A&F: it is within A&F's rights to hire whomever they want. It is however illegal in the US, generally, to deny a person a position for which they are qualified exclusively because of race or gender. If it can be proven that black, Latino and Asian folks were routinely not hired or relegated to certain positions ONLY because of their race, then the lawsuit has merit. If A&F can argue or prove that they employ fair hiring practices overall and can discredit the plantiffs and/or the allegations, then A&F, and their current hiring practices, will prevail. From the very comments on this thread, it would seem on the surface that A&F employs, at the very least, questionable hiring procedures in some of their stores.

People are funny. What is more personal than the style you choose to wear and how you present yourself? When we go to the mall. My daughter refuses to step inside Gadzooks because it's a "head shop" image. My son too has preferences of where he wants to shop. I tried to go into one store and the response was, "Mom, that's a Black store." How many "white" kids do you know that wear FUBU? One time I needed a cocktail dress in a hurry. I went to a lovely "black" store because I KNEW I could buy any dress there and NO ONE in my circle would have seen it. It was not a store that targeted white females. The point is, there are so many niches to fill because we ARE a diverse culture. To make it in the business world, ESPECIALLY when your clientele is youthful and fickle, image is everything. A&F targeting preppies is no different from Victoria's Secret targeting a certain body image. Consider Bebe for that matter. I've got another one. Should we now hire men to sell bras to the ladies???

Maybe someone else knows this-Does it make a difference since it's a publicly traded company?

Justamom,

Wonderfully put. That's kinda of where I was going with my post earlier...only I didn't phrase it like you did.

The people who work at A&F remind me of Adam Sandler & Chris Farley as the "Gap Girls." Anyone remember that skit?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sugar and spice
I'm of the mindset that very few people who claim they were "discriminated against for being Caucasian" were actually discriminated against -- they just had a priviledge that was taken away from them when they didn't necessarily deserve it in the first place.
In all honesty, I could probably claim that I have been "discriminated against for being Caucasian" too . . . but since the average white person probably faces said discrimination a handful of times in their lifetime and the average black person faces it constantly, I don't really feel like I have a right to b*tch.

So what I read this as is that it is okay for me to be discriminated against since I was priviledged to begin with, but not for the "average black person" since she/he "faces it constantly"? I am not "claiming" to be the target of discrimination -- I was the target and the people that were responsible had no problems in telling me as such.

Why is it a "priviledge" to be born white?? Why should I have to walk around all day saying to myself "I am white so I must go out of my way to make sure anyone who doesn't look like me is treated the way he/she should as to not upset anyone or make anyone feel left out" -- that's nonsense! And I think its a shame that there are people who DO walk around looking for any and every excuse to call someone racist. One of my girlfriends (who has a PhD - so we are talking serious education) looks for EVERY excuse to call someone racist....recently we went to Wendy's for lunch and the girl behind the counter dropped a penny of her change on the counter -- as the clerk scrambled to get it, my friend shouts at her "I guess that you wanted to see if a black woman would go running for a penny?" -- it was SO embarrassing...and she does this ALL the time! She told the doctor at the hospital where her mom was staying that if her mom was white, she wouldn't be having health problems because the doctor would try harder to help her! Here's the kicker - at our mall we have some parking spots for pregnant women and people with young children -- she PARKED in it one day (my son was not with us) and said that it wasn't really for pregnant women -- its so the mall can make sure that no black people are parking near the front door!!!!!

So these are the type of people that I am talking about when I say that too often, people have to look for excuses!

Having a black brother (he uses that term to describe himself) I am targeted for racism more than others. I am used to people telling us that we aren't "really" brother and sister -- or even members of our black community telling us that we shouldn't have adopted him but rather let him struggle as an orphan so he could grow used to the way white people will treat him as an adult. I'm like WTF??!! Where is my "priviledge" being taken away in this situation??

I knew that this topic would go off on the race card (insert the good reverend here...) because people can't just stop and see that EVERYONE can be discriminated against. Not just blacks, asains, latinos, etc... and that there is no priviledged white princess sitting here waving to my crowd outside. I am just ME and I am proud of who I am -- maybe others should have more pride in themselves and less need to look for the bad in others.

As for the women's/men's studies -- okay - I did take gender roles, but that was as it pertained to sexuality as a psych major. I just haven't heard anyone say "I'm getting a master's in men's studies" and wondered if that even exists.

I disagree on the curriculum thing - even back in my day (80's people!) we studied a lot of different people -- white/black/men/women/etc. Of course my mamma taught us that people should be recognized on their MERITS and not on something like gender. I think that men should sue to have a Men's History Month -- why not? There is no FORMAL recognition there and isn't that what we are arguing about....EVERYONE getting what they deserve?!

ROTFLMAO!!! Or been to some good 'ole southern towns.

I have class in a bit so I can't answer this as thoroughly as I'd like to right now -- I'll touch on the points that I miss later.

Like it or not, there is a concept called "white priviledge." Here's an article that gives you a pretty good idea of some of what it entails:

http://www.csulb.edu/~acargile/330/d...riviledge.html

If you can tell me that the majority of the items on that list don't apply to you, then great! You're one of the few white people who is rejecting their "white priviledges." But the rest of us 99 percent of white people have something to work on.

You can pay all the lip service you want to the ideals of "everyone is equal" but when it comes right down to it, whites have a lot of priviledges that people of color don't have in this country. Most of us who are white take these priviledges for granted and don't even notice them until they're thrown in our faces (which is basically what that article does). Until we're all ready to give up our "white priviledges," inequality in this country will continue to exist. And most of us aren't willing to do that because we've never lived without "white priviledge" so we assume that's the way it's supposed to be and that giving it up would be "reverse discrimination" . . . when in reality it would only be putting us on an equal playing field to what American people of color have always had to deal with. That's the long and the short of it.

As for "women's history"/"men's history" -- why do you think that women have achieved less than men? Part of it is because they were put in a position where they weren't allowed to achieve the way men do, but part of it is because women's contributions to society were regarded as unimportant simply because a woman did it! Why is the literary canon full of dead white males? Partially because women had a harder time getting published, but partially also because women weren't even "allowed" to write poetry (the more "serious" literary form than the novel) until the 1800s, and anything written by them before that was ignored. This was how it was in every aspect of society. Plus, in a male-dominated, male-identified, male-centric society (eeek, I'm getting all women's studies jargon-y now!), males were the ones who defined what was "important" -- if the world had always been ruled by women, what constitutes an "achievement" would probably be pretty different than all those crusades and wars and newly discovered continents and enslaved races.

Not to mention the fact that women's absences from the history books speak volumes. There is so much stuff that we are just now uncovering -- like, until the past fifteen or so years, there was essentially nothing written about the forced sterilization of women of color in the United States, and there are still so many people who don't know about things like that, or about female genital mutilation, or about the widow-burning in India that took place at (I think?) the beginning of the century . . . or SO many other things. If all that stuff is still being left out of the history books, imagine how much women have gone through that we now have no records of. In my opinion, that stuff is just as important if not more so than all the "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" stuff . . . and the kids growing up today are not learning it.

I wouldn't call that discrimination, because honestly I don't think any of the people who did those things were in a position to discriminate against you . . . you weren't putting yourself out there for their approval. Do I think some of those things were hateful? Of course. Do I think they were racist? Sure. But in my mind there's a difference between "racism" and "discrimination."

I'm not one of those people who thinks that black people can't be racist. But I do think that there's a difference between racism and discrimination, and unless you go to work at BET and they claim they can't hire you cause you're white, you're probably not "being discriminated against because you're Caucasian."

On a side note, am I the only white person who isn't offended in the least by the terms "honkey" or "cracker"? During my whole childhood, I never heard them used as anything but a joke and so now whenever I hear them, I can't take them seriously.

Since this thread has gone way off topic anyway, I just wanted to add.....

SugarNSpice=voice of reason:D

so how about those clothes???

Ditto.

The clothes suck azz. Can I sue them for "lack of good taste"?

sugar&spice, excellent job! I couldn't agree with you more:)