Abercromie Lawsuit

[sugar and spice]

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 ) 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.

[texas*princess]

Very eloquently put sugar&spice

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by sugar and spice

Wow, that was long.

...and very articulate and well thought out!

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by AXO Alum

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" --

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.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by sugar and spice

Wow, that was long.

But well worth the read.

[Jill1228]

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!

Sorry had to go off topic!

Originally posted by AXO Alum
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.
"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!)

[Shelacious]

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.

[justamom]

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?

[Jadey28]

Justamom,

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

[MoxieGrrl]

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

[AXO Alum]

[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?!

[Eirene_DGP]

Originally posted by Dionysus
CTFU

Where are you from?

You obviously never been to a shop in the hood or owned by foreigners, lol.

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

[PM_Mama00]

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.

It kinda is like affirmative action. Who are these people to tell a company what kinda people they should hire? I don't agree with it but who am I to call them out on it? I could sue them and say "hey, you need to start making clothes for plus size people". If A&F wana operate this way, then that's their perrogative.

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 it's ok that my car was assaulted and I was called a white bitch and this girl attempted to attack me (thank god for counting money and power windows) even tho I did nothing wrong (cept accidentally cut someone off but I apologized)? It's ok that on my way back from up north Michigan at a rest area I saw "honkey" carved into the cement? It's ok that when I got lost in the ghetto of Detroit (Woodward near Cass if you know what I'm talkin bout) I saw a large wooden sign on the outside of a bar that said "No Honkies Allowed". So it's ok if I say the word HONKEY?

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.

Exactly.

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.

Lol I'm totally with ya on this one. I am not sure if Ashley Stewart is targetted more towards black women, but I shop there regularly. Lane Bryant is the only store around here that plus size women can get decent clothes that don't make them look like they're 80 years old (as opposed to Marshal Fields or JC Penney). I LOVE Ashley Stewart because they've got great fashions for larger women. Yes I do get looks when I go in there, but I don't care. BE HAPPY I"M SPENDING MY MONEY THERE! On another note... seriously, some black women have a wayyyyyy better and classier fashion style than white women.

[sugar and spice]

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.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by PM_Mama00


So it's ok that my car was assaulted and I was called a white bitch and this girl attempted to attack me (thank god for counting money and power windows) even tho I did nothing wrong (cept accidentally cut someone off but I apologized)? It's ok that on my way back from up north Michigan at a rest area I saw "honkey" carved into the cement? It's ok that when I got lost in the ghetto of Detroit (Woodward near Cass if you know what I'm talkin bout) I saw a large wooden sign on the outside of a bar that said "No Honkies Allowed". So it's ok if I say the word HONKEY?

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.