Double standard
 

Matter of fact, I will start the thread.

I KNOW some of you guys agree with PM_Mama. No reason to be afraid to post it. I have heard so many people talk about the racial "double standards" that exist today, such as black comedians and their jokes about white people. I think it is possible to have a HEALTHY debate about this topic even though some people are scared to touch it. Any takers?

I don't get easily offended so as far as black commedians (for example) and their jokes about white people go...that's fine. But I think the key to that example and some others is that it's all personal preferance.
I'm going to step outside the race barrier for a second and take you to the male/female barriers. I had a boss say a bunch of lewd comments and to some females that may not be offensive, whereas to me, they were.
Similarly some things that black people do or say may or may not be offensive to the individual...and vice versa.

I really wish people wouldn't clump each other by race, because aren't we all individuals with individual thoughts, ideas, and feelings?

And as to the start of this thread I have no idea who disagrees or agrees with PM_Mama or what that has to do with anything...I'm just throwing in my two cents (which probably didn't make sence to begin with).

Much love,
Hootie

I'll see if we can get a discussion going . . .

There's way more than a 'double' standard - it's nearly infinite.

There are times and places where the 'double standard' is that white people can be as openly offensive as they like, and minorities can simply eat it, and so on for every possible combination under the sun - it is always this time and place, everything related to the context in which it is delivered.

That said, the classic "white guys drive like ______, black guys drive like _______" type of comedy isn't implicitly racist in form - in fact, many comedians of all walks of life have made fun of the differences between groups of people, without being offensive in the slightest.

However, it is always easier to poke fun at your own group - there is a lessened chance of backlash from the community you are lampooning if you are a part of it yourself, and it can be a little disarming to hear barbs from someone 'on the inside' so to speak.

To my mind, I'd like to know exactly what is meant when people describe a racial "double standard" - where do you draw the line when you define this standard? Recall that Jennifer Lopez was openly mauled in the media for improperly referring to 'her niggas' in a recent song, and she's not white. It's not a white vs. black thing here - it is a matter of respect, a matter of intent, and a matter of what is proper.

I don't think that black entertainers can necessarily get away with more than white entertainers, especially in terms of making jokes with a racial component - I just don't see it, mostly because I've seen those types of jokes done by entertainers of every color, background, and sex w/out incident and to no negative end effect.

.KSig RC-it is always this time and place, everything related to the context in which it is delivered.

-I love comedy. Arsenio Hall and Eddie Murphy made a lot of money playing the racial angle, Red Foxx as well. They each took a different perspective though. Like KSig RC mentioned, it's easier to poke fun at your own group which often times was the tract these entertainers took. Then there is Cosby, the class act of the century. Any person could wind up rolling on the floor because he had universal appeal and found the "comedy" in
situations everyone could relate to.
-The current music industry has taken a forum with great potential and segregated the delivery of the message from the mainstream. This is ONLY an opinion. I find a great deal of the music offensive yet my son can see the social content like I did in the protest songs of the 60's. Still, some has little if none redeeming value. (This is true across the board.)
-The film industry opened my eyes with movies like "A Patch of Blue" "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" "Raisin In the Sun" and so many more. I don't care for the mindless sitcoms that seem to perpetuate the "white" impression of a black family or characters. Yet are they not black actors taking money to make us "white folk" laugh?
-Books "Black Like Me" and "To Kill a Mockingbird", off the top of my head, have had an impact on how perceive things.
-Let's not forget J. C. Watts, Langston Hughes, and the courage of Rosa Parks. Yet it has been said by various Black leaders that Jesse Jackson makes money off the charities for the betterment of his race.
-Friendships, acquaintances, peers, associates, all relationships deliver a message as well. This boils down to behavior. Are we only comfortable when everyone it white-ized?

I don't believe whites are the only ones perpetuating a double standard. As long as blacks accept money or succumb to the white dominated industries, there is a shared responsibility. On the flip side how else will there be mainstream exposure to talents or social commentary??? The proverbial "rock and a hard place"?:confused:

can't we all just get along? On that note:

Let the millionaire cry babies of the MLB go on strikes, i don't care anymore.

Arya-Let the millionaire cry babies of the MLB go on strikes, i don't care anymore.

:D I'm with you!

Just for the record I think each poster in this topic has had extremely valid points. However, there are some people out there who DO generalize and who do become angry when they believe a double-standard exists.

Hootie to answer your question, I referred to PM_Mama, because in another thread she stated her anger over these so-called double standards. I wasn't trying to single her out, but her post prompted me to start this thread. Also, someone named chantillylace agreed with her. I was hoping we could hear more of that side than the side presented by you guys who have posted, because it DOES exist.

I am also not trying to imply that it only occurs in black and white form. The are also gender "double-standards," as well as fill-in-the-blank other race "double standards," if that made any sense.

I think this forum has had many great race discussions since I have begun to visit (some have gotten a little out of hand, but most have been fairly educational). This is a topic most people have shied away from, even though it is one of the most problematic.

Arya, it is not a point of getting along, although I realize you were just trying to lighten this thread up. Fortunately, it has not degenerated just yet, but we may need you a little later, lol.

[continues thread hijack]
hahaha, don't even get me started - it's millionaire crybaby players against greedy billionaire owners . . . what a mind-numbingly ridiculous situation to complain over, especially in the middle of such a great season.
[/hijack]

Yes, we are all individuals... just like everyone else!

*groan*

(sorry, that was bad)

Re: Double standard
 

Fine. What do you want to debate?

Reparations?
The ghettos that you think were created by the government?

Max, I see that statement as little inflammatory. I don't think that either of those were really the subject of the thread. I've enjoyed reading this so far and would hate for it to get off one one of those tangents.

I think we are having trouble knowing where you want to go with this.

Understandable. No one has come forth to offer any opinions contrary to the ones posted, and that is what I wanted. I think there are some people on GC who do not post for fear of being thought of as "un-PC" or prejudiced. I would rather those people post and ask questions or state their opinion and just basically BE HONEST. I respect that.

Mad max...if you would like to debate either of those issues feel free to pm me anytime. I think that most GC'ers are kinda tired of both of those and would rather not read anymore unless you have something new and earth-shattering to share. By the way, what is your deal? You come onto the thread and post some close-minded comments and that is all? If you want a debate I am up for it. PM me.

I'm not exactly sure what this thread is saying, but I will go ahead and stick my opinion in it anyway! :D I know that the "mule" thread got a little out of hand, but I'm not blaming anyone because everyone made good points. PM_Mama might have been a little blunt in what she said, but I do agree in part with her. I don't like to hear people whine and blame others for their failure to keep a job, get into the school they want, be as rich as the neighbors, etc, etc. I don't care what color, race, creed, nationality, or whatever you are; I just would rather see you try to make something of yourself instead of b*tching about it. As far as the issue at hand goes, I am not saying that all of the issues African Americans have are not legitimate, because in some cases there really is discrimination and whatnot and we don't need that, so I don't mind if people are vocal about that. But in my own experience, and I repeat IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE (I know this does not apply to everyone), the African Americans who have strongly argued for reparations were the ones who would rather blame their problems on others who lived a hundred years ago than try to change the situation. But please don't scream at me for saying this, because I know this probably only describes a handful of people. I personally don't really agree with the reparations idea, simply because it's so hard to put a price on it. But I don't think we should forget our mistakes, slavery being one, and I'm really sorry it happened. I just think we ought to move forward. And as someone else said, why can't we all just get along?? :confused:

AchtungBaby, thank you for your honesty. I really don't want to turn librasoul's thread into another version of the "40 acres and a mule" thread, so I urge you to follow this link http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...450#post249450 and read the first post on the page (by me) that offers a reparations analogy. After reading it, I'd like to know if you stand by your opinion. Maybe you should PM me instead of posting it here.

I think that the way we try to go about resolving the issue of double standards is odd. Instead of trying to let them phase out on their own through utilizing education, we counteract them.

Since we were talking about black/white jokes... there came a point in history where it just wasn't acceptable for white commedians to tell black jokes that bordered on cruel. However, there came more and more black commedians that took that same racial angle. Is that supposed to even it up? What's the point?

(Side note: And from a Polish perspective: Why is it considered un- "PC" and frowned upon to make jokes about someone of a different color, but to pick on a person because of their heritage (Polish, Italian, Irish) is ok?)

Also, we are counteracting gender stereotypes and I feel that is extremely unhealthy. The feminist movement, sexual harrassment cases, blah blah blah.... made it unacceptable for a man to brag to his friends about his "piece of ass" last night. That man is looked at as an immature, misogynist pig. But what about the "modern" woman who talks about a man in the same way? (Either way you look at it, it's gross behavior.) Yet, these women are considered ....more specific terms are escaping me now....a Cosmo woman and applauded.

Blah...... I don't know if this made any sense. I don't care. Work is boring. And besides, the MLB strike is taking away my fiancee's job.
:(

I read it, and it's a good analogy for getting people to understand the situation. But I still stand by my opinion. You could compensate the woman for her work, but what about emotional distress and all the other things that she had to put up with? How do you put a price on that? Even if someone tried, we could never get anyone to settle on it. Then there's the fact that in your analogy, the woman herself would be compensated for her own work, whereas in the actual situation, none of the people directly involved are alive today. If we were going to pay reparations, we're about 100 years too late. And that's really sad.

But I really respect you [Bamboozled] for not yelling at me like I was afraid people would. I was just trying to be honest, and I really don't want to offend anyone. Where I'm from, people still ride around with Confederate flags on their trucks and my family has had some KKK members, so I'm probably in the minority in what I think even though I might sound a little on the racist side to the rest of the world.

Achtung, do not be afraid that people will yell at you, lol. I think you have a very valid point.

Moxie, that is very true. Partly it is because in the past, there has been a great disparity between the rights of men and women and whites and non-whites. To some extent, laughter makes it seem a little less overbearing, if that makes any sense. It kinda takes the weight off. I will try to word that better and come back.

Here's a GOOD example! Grades take a back seat in California???

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1119/p1s3-ussc.html
I just heard this on FOX this month. I had NO IDEA!

USA > Society & Culture
from the November 19, 2001 edition

New scale to weigh college applicants

In California, grades still count, but so do hardship and talents.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BERKELEY, CALIF. - Six years ago, the University of California won nationwide praise and censure when it outlawed affirmative action in admissions decisions. Last week, it took another bold step.
Beginning this autumn, University of California campuses will for the first time be able to look beyond test scores and grade-point averages when evaluating every applicant. Other factors - from overcoming hardship to musical talent - will now always be given consideration.

To some, the rules seem like a thinly veiled attempt to skirt the affirmative-action ban. But many experts say this is simply the latest gambit to ensure fairness in a rapidly changing collegiate world. As record numbers of students apply to college, more are being rejected, forcing admissions officers into ever-more-creative ways to gauge would-be freshmen - and subjecting the process to unprecedented scrutiny.

"Over the past decade, the classical test-score, GPA-driven admissions have begun to be reexamined for their efficacy," says Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "It's a huge deal.... To move away from a mechanical admissions policy to a more complex and subtle policy is going to have a tremendous impact."

The significance of last week's move lies primarily in the fact that, for nearly half a century, California has been a trendsetter on issues of education. From its adoption of the Stanford Achievement Test as a universal yardstick to its curtailing of bilingual education, California has consistently been at the vanguard of education reform.

"Wherever public policy is going, California gets there first," says Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education in Washington.

Making a private model public

In a broad sense, California's new "comprehensive review" is nothing new. Private colleges have long looked at applicants' full dossier of academic achievements, extracurricular activities, and life experiences. But state colleges - dealing with a far greater volume of students - have seldom had that luxury. The trend is growing, though. Texas has incorporated nonacademic criteria for several years for half its students. The other half gain admittance automatically by finishing in the top 10 percent at their high schools.

To be sure, the question of how to admit the best freshman class is being looked at closely nationwide. For decades, the University of California - like other public institutions - has held that a certain percentage of students had to be chosen on academic merit alone, and only the remaining students could be chosen by looking at other factors as well.

Until last week, the two groups were set at 50 percent each. Now, admissions officers can take all aspects into account for every applicant. It's a more costly and time-consuming method, but administrators say the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

"The system we had been using put artificial restrictions on campuses looking for the most-qualified applicants," says Brad Hayward, a spokesman for the UC system.

Not everyone agrees, though. Some critics have charged that these standards are fuzzier and could allow admissions officers to admit students based on race. Moreover, others say, choosing a class based on factors other than academics can lead to a lower-quality student body.

For their part, Texas officials say this has not been the case. Often, students chosen by "comprehensive review" have outperformed their academically admitted colleagues. "If you're in admissions, you need more information, not less," says Bruce Walker, admissions director at the University of Texas in Austin. "It's important to put students' achievements in some sort of context."

Time-consuming process

Under the old guidelines, University of California's Berkeley campus tried to do that as much as possible - sometimes looking at applications half a dozen times for students not chosen solely by academics. Now that all campuses can choose all their students in this way, Berkeley has become something of a model.

At Berkeley, more than 60 readers - both teachers and hired professionals - get 60 to 70 hours of training in how to evaluate applications, and students are sometimes asked to send more information.

Campus officials say they haven't seen a radical change in the student body since this policy began three years ago, nor do they expect a revolution now. But the policies have had a subtle effect. "We have a more engaged group, because we're looking at a broader definition of merit," says Calvin Moore, a math professor.

Hell in my Daddys day, they would eat the damn Mule if nothing else to eat!

I love the Acedamia of this country trying to change the positions of the mix of ethnic qualities of the schoold!


Just who in the heall are the Acedanians to tell us as individuals that Black and white is different and HAVE TO MIX?

Damn, are we totally stupid to not realize that people from different back grounds are not the same!

Do I hate OTW, LSoul, ZAce, Nina, as We are not the same?

NOT!

I have to find out about a person before I can dislike or disrespect them!

If it is up to the Stupidos and Idiotios then I should Hate everyone!

Am I racist hell yes I am against anyone who trys to harm me or my Freinds!

Do I know what Color or religion they are? Not unless they tell me!

My PC is in Black and White and That is the Truth!

Why do people come into my Store? I had a Black Dude Who I have not seen in years come in and tell me why he has not been in to see me!

Damn his health sucked! That is what I was most worried about not his color!

I work hard to try to get a tan do you? I will die soon from skin cancer trying to get the same tan of of a few of my freinds!

Is this shit your biggest Problem in life that OTW, N, LSoul, HKiss etal are different collor?

What a sad state of affairs we are in!

I know I am not feeling well now hope it is indigestion!

Hell. I cannot Die now, I have to much shit to do! Only the Good Die Young, and I aint that good!:)

Trust me, I will be hear for yall! Ah and be with Yall!:cool:

I am going to live to be a 118!:cool:

If everyone is just take it slower and be polite to each other, it'll be all good. Seriously, politeness goes along way.