Appointed Roles with Predetermined Race

[Caracal]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Really, I need to be able to justify it to myself. I'm ok with the idea that I have a preference for seeing a female therapist. I wouldn't feel ok with acting on a preference for a white therapist. I can potentially understand why someone might prefer a black doctor, but whether they think that's ok is sort of their business.

[dismalist]

Old racism: Race is owned by the seller.
New racism: Race is owned by the buyer.

[financeguy]

For personal decisions that no one will know were made based on race or gender, obviously there will be no need or requirement to "show your work." We hope that people, if they are going to use this or any other reason, have something other than hate based prejudice as a root cause for the decision, but this still brings up interesting things about public statements.

Some will continue to say that using race or gender is racist/sexist regardless of the reason while some will say it's possible or likely but would depend on the reason why. Someone could not want to see the specific physician because of hate for the group. Another person may believe affirmative action lowers standers for that group and thus they want someone who "didn't get preferential treatment." Another person bases their decision off superstition based on astrology, throwing darts at a board or anything else that "picked at group to choose or avoid." Another person was the victim of a crime perpetrated by a member of that group and "doesn't want to be reminded." Another person used a physician from that group the last ten times and had a good experience but wants to "spread the business around" and thus chooses a different group this time arbitrarily, independent of the qualifications of the member of the group that will no longer be used. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Everyone who's every engaged in a prejudicial act toward someone has "a reason."  Some people believe there is no "acceptable" reason if the outcome is biased, which pretty much ends that conversation. If you do believe some reasons are acceptable and others aren't, this brings up an interesting discussion of the standards that should matter in determining acceptability.

[AvidReader]

Really, I need to be able to justify it to myself. I'm ok with the idea that I have a preference for seeing a female therapist. I wouldn't feel ok with acting on a preference for a white therapist. I can potentially understand why someone might prefer a black doctor, but whether they think that's ok is sort of their business.

Perhaps some of the difference here is that a therapist of color might have an understanding of many elements of white culture through friendship, media, and other mainstream representations of the white experience. A white therapist, in contrast, might not be aware of some of the tensions faced by people from a minority group and might not be able to offer the most effective counseling available. If you were religious, would you feel ok with acting on a preference for a therapist who shared your beliefs? I can imagine circumstances in which that shared culture would allow the counselor to offer substantially more useful advice.

But I agree with financeguy that the rules are a little different when it is personal choice rather than public nomination, in part because we don't have to justify our choices.

AR.

[financeguy]

I'm not necessarily buying the premise that a black person has an insight into white culture through basic osmosis that is greater than the understanding that works in reverse. We're all probably a bit more of a mystery to each other than we think, although I'll admit many assumptions on my part that affect everyone such as a default position toward tribalism and own group preference.

I guess the physician aspect could be complicated if government payment is in part involved, through Medicare or Medicaid, for example. When I was in the health insurance game many years ago it's amazing how many people simply will not consider HMO plans despite substantial cost difference because they insist on seeing a specific physician. I live in a major city where the provider list is literally thousands of physicians. It simply isn't logically possible that a functioning health system could only contain one who is capable of treating them. Many of these people are acting out of familiarity but many more than we expect are acting out the desire to choose based on gender and race.

[AvidReader]

We're all probably a bit more of a mystery to each other than we think.

Agree, and point taken. I don't really know whether the osmosis of culture is stronger in one direction or not, because I am not two people, but a lot of the anti-racism readings contend that certain race-based experiences (black women's hair comes to mind, for instance) are vastly underrepresented in popular culture, which is what prompted my comment.

AR.

[marshwiggle]

We're all probably a bit more of a mystery to each other than we think.

Agree, and point taken. I don't really know whether the osmosis of culture is stronger in one direction or not, because I am not two people, but a lot of the anti-racism readings contend that certain race-based experiences (black women's hair comes to mind, for instance) are vastly underrepresented in popular culture, which is what prompted my comment.

AR.

This can be used as kind of a magic wand to suggest that virtually any "experience" of a person from any minority can't really be "understood" by society in general*. (The issue of black women's hair actually has some objective reality behind it, but the argument can get used for things where the objective reality is not nearly so distinct.)

*I'm left handed. I could argue, by that logic, that I ought never to have any right-handed coach or trainer in any physical task, e.g. gym teacher, guitar teacher, etc. because they don't have my "lived experience". Trust  me, in high school it was always annoying to have to reverse everything in my head, like how to shoot a basketball, because teachers were completely oblivious.

[AvidReader]

I think that overstates it slightly, which I think was your point. I am not left-handed, but my mother was. It took her years to learn to knit because everyone else in her family was right-handed. In that case, having a left-handed instructor was the difference between learning to knit and not, so I think that could plausibly apply to several different circumstances. If a guitar student chooses to re-string his guitar to play the opposite way, I imagine it would help immensely to have a teacher with a common approach.

In contrast, I don't imagine that a left-handed ballet dancer or swimmer would substantially benefit from having a left-handed coach (unless I have misunderstood those activities). A black Christian woman who goes to counseling after being sexually assaulted by her white male employer may well prefer/choose a black Christian woman as a therapist if one is available, and I wouldn't blame her: there are elements of that encounter and her subsequent feelings that some white atheist men might not understand, although that might also be specific to the therapist (just as it would be specific to the woman and the situation).

The more we generalize about races/creeds/genders/handedness, the easier it is to brush someone off because they are different from me. But in a therapist situation, giving the white male atheist counselor a shot could cost my hypothetical woman a lot of money, so it makes sense that she might look for the best fit first. Her white male atheist counselor might have read a lot about sexual assault and the Christian faith. His sister might have been harassed by a boss. He might be the perfect fit, but she wouldn't know that. Your guitar teacher might be ambidextrous. I still don't think it matters with swimming. But I think the point is that all of us should be looking at single individuals on their own merits, rather than categorizing them based on sweeping generalizations, and it's very hard for most of us to do that. Instead, I'd expect my hypothetical woman to say "My last male/white/atheist counselor didn't understand X, so this time I want a counselor who [new demographic]." I have certainly uttered this statement with different qualifiers before, but I don't think there is an easy way to fix the generalizations it implies. At its best, it might train us to ask better questions about methodology/practice before we hire a new teacher or switch to a new counselor.

AR.

[Anselm]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Here's one recent example. Sharon Osbourne got into trouble on "The View" for questioning why it is "racist" for Piers Morgan to say he doesn't believe Meghan Markle.

Let's parse that:

• She wasn't saying she didn't believe MM.
• She didn't say PM was justified in saying he didn't believe MM.
• What she said was that it isn't inherently racist of PM to say he didn't believe MM. (There could be numerous reasons for not believing someone, that have nothing to do with the person's identity.)

It doesn't matter whether you're a fan of MM, PM, or SO. But to infer or imply that SO is racist for saying that someone else isn't guilty of racism for simply disbelieving another person is absolutely nuts.

Stay woke, my friend.

A most interesting observation I read recently is that the current situation is essentially Gnosticism.  A tiny elite, mostly hidden, determine if you are walking the correct path but you can never be certain if you are safe from damnation.  The rules are always changing and new gurus come and go.

[dismalist]

You could use the "I feel more comfortable" statement for anything, which is why I prefer the argument that I don't need to justify my own purchases. The example of a therapist is definitely showing a gender bias but is it one that treads to the label of "sexist?" Maybe a male therapist would say so, but ultimately it's definitional. Expand the term racist, sexist or anything else and everyone can fit. The fact that you have a reason that you believe is presumably more "legitimate" than the guy who says "I don't think women would be good at job x" is supposedly the reasoning for not falling into the "sexist" category, but some people's definitions of the "ist" words are such that they don't rely on a reason being logical or not. If it prejudices the group, it is in the "ist" category of behavior. Without an agreement on the definition, a discussion over who is and isn't included is impossible.

Here's one recent example. Sharon Osbourne got into trouble on "The View" for questioning why it is "racist" for Piers Morgan to say he doesn't believe Meghan Markle.

Let's parse that:

• She wasn't saying she didn't believe MM.
• She didn't say PM was justified in saying he didn't believe MM.
• What she said was that it isn't inherently racist of PM to say he didn't believe MM. (There could be numerous reasons for not believing someone, that have nothing to do with the person's identity.)

It doesn't matter whether you're a fan of MM, PM, or SO. But to infer or imply that SO is racist for saying that someone else isn't guilty of racism for simply disbelieving another person is absolutely nuts.

Stay woke, my friend.

A most interesting observation I read recently is that the current situation is essentially Gnosticism.  A tiny elite, mostly hidden, determine if you are walking the correct path but you can never be certain if you are safe from damnation.  The rules are always changing and new gurus come and go.

The current situation is nowhere near Gnosticism, for these various groups emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church [via Wikipedia]. Au contraire, what we have is an identifiable would-be elite determining the correct path and pillorying one for deviation. The identifiable elite aspires to be the new Church.

The new Church is neo-marxist bs. Charly Marx himself is turning over in his grave, by the way.