zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
I'm not a woman but I'm a minority in other dimensions.

I've always felt labels such as "female-led", "female-owned", "<insert minority-led>" do the opposite of what they intend to do. That is, they paint a picture that this minority group is not capable enough and need a lot of hand holding so everyone please bias your decisions towards their success to the detriment of other groups.

If that's not enough, currently there are few repercussions for false sexism/racism accusations. I've seen some men lose their career even though the accusations turned out to be a coordinated revenge and were false.

All these together makes dealing with a minority group a lot risky and potentially a headache.

I believe the solution is to keep existing anti discriminatory laws but also ensure false accusations are sufficiently punished/disincentivesed

>>gerash+mL
This is the problem. America was supposed to be the land of the free, where anyone from anywhere could have an opportunity didn't matter who they where.

Instead we created African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Gay-Americans, Straight-Americans, Native-Americans, etc, and everyone is out for themselves. And everyone is against one another.

Female-led, Black-led, Latino-majority, who gives a fuck. Do your job better than yesterday if you even want a chance of someone giving a fuck.

Racism is not something you fight with laws, racism and sexism is something you fight with actions. Promoting a "black-business" is not integration, just imagine being proud of having a "white-business". Promoting a "female-business" is not fighting sexism, imagine having a male only policy on anything and thinking you are helping.

If we could forgo with the labels we would relieve so much pressure from society it's not even funny any more.

>>insert+Km1
Sadly, it is not as simple as that:

Imagine a society of squirrels and hamsters where squirrels have been oppressing hamsters for centuries. Then, one day, they decide to stop doing that and treat everyone the same.

On average, a young squirrel will come from a family that is vastly richer and better educated than a young hamster. So, if they have to compete "fairly", the hamsters will remain much poorer for centuries more.

This leads to a need to rebalance those two groups, and that rebalance means artificially propping up hamsters. Ideally, we would want to get to a world where the young squirrel and hamster can, on average, compete "fairly"... I have no idea how to achieve that while minimizing the negative side effects.

>>curiou+nA1
That would be like believing in original sin for squirrels, instituting the bad end of 'affirmative action' on them, all in the name of fairness of course.

>>visarg+bJ1
Well but that's not such an outrageous concept, is it? Germany still pays war reparations, recognizing that due to their actions other countries have suffered. And yes, a young German nowadays might ask "well, why is my money going to foreign countries, for something that my grandparents did? How is that fair?".

And well, they aren't entirely wrong, but they aren't entirely right either. Society has obligations which can last longer than a single generation. If society has systematically oppressed and made one group poorer, then society has the obligation to make it right. So yes, squirrels have the societal obligation to make it right for the hamsters, even if none of the original opressing squirrels are even alive.