Blaming your failures (or "C" grade, or whatever) on perceived discrimination is weaksauce without any real proof. Sometimes there's only a hunch. You can do something about that.
The "it's everywhere" followed by examples of sitcoms is actually pretty spot-on. You could, you know, not watch them. You could not pay them any mind. I don't know if they discriminate against you, frankly, because I don't watch that drivel.
You are putting your responses within quotes of my text. The first time I read your response, I was wondering what I had said that you were bolding. It's not really a nice thing to do. It's a bit tiresome, actually, and hopefully no one attributes those ridiculous statements to me based upon your false quoting.
You continue with the accusations of my being emotional, and cite my calling you a troll as proof. So far, you are fitting the definition quite well. The dictionary must indeed be an emotional book, full of words and definitions.
I'm not sure if anyone has told you, but bold and CAPS are considered shouting. Your poor composition, coupled with the bold and CAPS, make it seem like you're breathlessly ranting. If that's not the impression you wish to give, then consider devoting a little more time to your posts.
We're NOT equal! Will you people stop saying that?
Which people, precisely? This thread and the original article are about the stupid attempt to split the economic downturn into a race and gender issue. We are equal in that we are being screwed by Government. Since you say women are making more, surely you realize they must therefore be paying quite a bit in taxes. Since white males are discriminated against to the point of losing their jobs at such a massive rate, surely that must mean that many are receiving Government assistance. It would seem that your logic would, superficially, make women more likely to get screwed over by the current economy. One of the major pillars of this current mess is unemployment.
All I said to set you off on your hopscotch of name-calling and finger-pointing was
Oh. Goody. THIS is where this thread is going.
. I still hold the same view. Rather than talking about the article, and about the economy harming us all, it's become a one-upmanship contest where you talk about the bad grades you got because you're a straight (who brought sexual orientation into it?) white male. It reads like a therapy session, full of anecdotes and random punctuation.
Since you can't distill my answers from their context throughout my posts, I guess I'll address your "logical points" which you wanted me to talk to you about.
1. A level playing field where no individual is helped to surpass another individual over race, gender, or sexual orientation is the morally correct thing to do, and also what Ron Paul advocates if that matters to you.
I'm sure you realize this isn't a question, which might be why I didn't answer it. Your "if that matters to you" is neither insult nor emotion to you, curiously enough. A level playing field is not something I've ever spoken against. I don't see why you keep calling for me to do so. It makes no sense. None.
2. Straight white men are insulted daily, and we are hurt daily by problems we encounter due to being straight white males. For example, I have had female professors, at least 3 of them, that gave me a lower class grade than I deserved because I was a white male, and going to get a B or A depending on what class. I am absolutely certain one professor did this because I know my grades, I talked to the professor so she knew me out of random students, and I got a C+ when I should have got an A-. And that's just one example of ways I have been hurt from being a straight white male, and does not get into the insults. The insults are the bad part because that happens at least almost everyday.
Once again, since this was not a question it did not get an answer. You believe you should have gotten an A- and the professor gave you a C+. What does this have to do with unemployment right now? It seemed more like an anecdote than anything you wanted to discuss. You are calling for me to counter your "logical" point here, but I don't understand what that would entail. Am I to say "no, you didn't have a professor and you obviously deserved a C-"? I did that, albeit jokingly, and you called it illogical and emotional.
3. Are things like affirmative action, financial assistance for everyone other than straight white males to go to college, and so on, really truly fair to us as individuals? If they are not fair, then women and minorities are not at a disadvantage, and are actually at an advantage compared to white males.
Aha! A question! At last! Of course, your premise is a little bit faulty on various levels from where I see it. Affirmative Action is a hurtful program, obviously, but you're discussing college throughout your post and even this point. Ideally, colleges should be able to discriminate as to whom they grant admission. There could be a left-handed college, for all I care, and it would be great. Colleges accepting public funds... well that muddies things. Scholarships and aid from private sources should likewise be for whoever the sources want. Financial aid at colleges is actually based on your application, at least here. I can't speak for your experiences. Of course, here you also get a boost into a state school if you have a decent GPA and did some community service, regardless of race or financial status. Plenty of "straight white males" fall into that category as well. There are a lot of "diversity" -obsessed schools which twist it all around and will bend over backwards to admit an Inuit amputee whose father served in the Vietnam War and played the flute, or some other treasured "minority." Avoiding those like the plague helps matters immensely, too.
Finally, you keep referring back to the statement from which these three points come as the apex of your argument, the crucial point after which I became emotional and you called me on it. That would hold more water if this shining example of naked logic didn't begin with:
You really think you are still at a disadvantage compared to a man? You really think men are not being hit harder by the recession than women?
...and end with...
Your emotional statements are nice, but not logical. There has never been a time as hard for straight white men as today's environment in history from a straight white male's perspective.
Since the first one was a question, I'll even loop back to answer it. No, I don't feel that I'm at a disadvantage to men in general. I have two jobs at the moment. I don't think a man is going to swoop in and get paid double for doing the same work, or call me "cupcake," or any of the things the cliches say will happen. My boss values my work, which brings results that can be quantified and analyzed. Most of my co-workers are female because they are ex-nurses. Most of our best-paid employees are male (physical, occupational, and speech therapists). I don't think they get paid more because they're male. I think they get paid more because they have to deal with hoisting up a 300-pound naked man and helping him learn to walk after a knee replacement.
I think that, largely, people get paid what they deserve. If I'm not making enough, I can lobby for more or seek better employment. I don't get why there has to be some imaginary war between genders over it. If you are personally being discriminated against, do something to better your lot.
I also believe you really are still arguing over who's getting screwed over in the most comfortable position.
This country is in deep, deep trouble. I'm sorry your professor discriminated against you (???). Can we now get back to figuring out how to wrest the economy from the sleazebags in Washington? You know, the sort that write divisive little articles in the hopes that someone will sit around bemoaning the lot of their race/gender/etc. rather than do something productive?
Seriously, though, what's the anecdote have to do with my observation that a downturn in the economy does affect everyone?
