131–140 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that like making an event 'inclusive' is some kind of chore. In fact, what we're talking about is stopping people at the door because they have the wrong skin color.
That is not at all what is being done here; in fact, that's a grievous misrepresentation of what they're doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asian is as much a race as White or Black is. ( All races are social constructed with culturally-ascribed boundaries, so really, anything that is generally perceived and treated as a race is a race; even if you restrict it to three "classical" races, White, Black, and Asian are pretty much the modern names for Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.)
My point is, what about all the other people? The world is not divided into White, Black, Asian and Spanish-speaking. There are Indians, Central Asians, Arabs, Persians... Even 19th century racialists in their ignorant understanding of the world didn't lump 2/3 of the world's population into a miscellaneous category.
The common racial categories today (of which others are subcategories) are (though different names are sometimes used) Black, White, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American. Sometimes Pacific Islanders are considered a separate high-level group, rather than part of a top-level group with Asian. [0]
(Hispanic is an ethnic group that is usually treated as cutting across racial groups.)
> There are Indians, Central Asians, Arabs, Persians...
In terms of the usual racial categories, that's Asian, Asian, White, and White.
> Even 19th century racialists in their ignorant understanding of the world didn't lump 2/3 of the world's population into a miscellaneous category.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the old Mongoloid from the long-dominant threefold racial category -- which is the closest parallel in the old scheme to the modern Asian category but is even broader -- certainly did so even more than one could argue that "Asian" does in the dominant modern scheme.
[0] See, e.g., the categories used by the US Census (and the US government more generally, which do break out Pacific Islanders separately) http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the parent is getting at, I think, is that by having explicitly set-aside hours for groups 'B' and 'C', it will create a stigma that groups 'B' and 'C' must attend only those designated hours -- effectively making the "normal" office hours for the "elite' group 'A'. It seems to me, no matter what way you look at it, separated office hours will perpetuate segregation and bigotry, instead of the desired effect.
The normal office hours ARE elite. They're available only to people who have been accepted into YC. The goal of the program is to make more of those (A) group people members of underrepresented demographics.
I'm not trying to be a troll, I'm just trying to find a justification. Having something that says you can only can come in if you are "Black, Hispanic, Women, Veterans, and International founders" kinda racist as fuck? It sounds exactly like segregation to me. Again, not trying to be a troll. Not American, just trying to understand.
Good question! My best answer is that many members of these groups have an even harder time starting a startup. In addition to all the normal outreach we do to all startup founders (6500+ applied for the last batch) we also want to do targeted outreach to underrepresented groups in order to close the gap.
and you certain its all due to their skin color etc? Sorry, I'm having a hard time to believe it.
> we also want to do targeted outreach to underrepresented
Having that much resources to invest (limited, are they?), you likely will end up funding a business based on founder's skin color. Sorry, but that how it looks like from outside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i disagree with the anti-identification claim. if we indeed do not "see race", then how can we even talk about racism, let alone fix it? this may seem trivial, but it is important. as a gay guy, i've heard similar arguments from people (like, "i don't care about sexuality, as long as you're a good person"), and i believe in good intentions, but many people do "see race", and that creates a social situation where peop…
What is the ultimate goal you wish to achieve? Do you want to be known as the "gay black guy", or just another human friend? What if your sexual interests go beyond current definitions; are we to add a new slice to the pie chart simply for one person's identification? The trans-gender, sexual-orientation debate gets specific, but it's irrelevant in the end. As I advised a kid confused about his orientation recently:…
in an ideal society, it should be as you say - everyone free to be themselves. but we do not live in that society. and if we want to get to that, then we need to take action. and asymmetric situations require asymmetric measures in order to achieve change.
i believe your intentions are good, but do you realise that what you're suggesting sounds like we should all pretend that we're not black/white/gay/str8/whatever? it's really silly. for gay people, it was important to show our pride, not because we wanted to label ourselves even more, but because we had to direct attention to the issue to get it fixed, raise our visibility, get heard. and ultimately, going to gay pride was for me an incredibly empowering experience. one cruel thing about systematic discrimination is that the people affected by it often internalize it, and perceive themselves as less worthy. coming together and standing up for ourselves helps fight that too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not at all what is being done here; in fact, that's a grievous misrepresentation of what they're doing.
Why? That is literally what they're doing. As I read it, there are extended services available to those with black skin, but if you have brown skin, then "fuck off".
The "fuck off" is a nice rhetorical touch, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Asian" is not a race.
Neither is black or hispanic. The entire debate around 'race' in the US I find is riddled with outdated concepts and semantics. In many developed countries's dialogue on these issues the semantics rarely touch on race anymore as it's quite meaningless and scientifically untenable. Instead when we talk about different peoples in socioeconomic debates by referring to various ethnicities (which are quite flexible, you c…
Like a black person from Nigeria has very different experiences than a black Amercian, but black people from LA and NYC probably have a lot to relate about.
Besides which, the US as a country has put 100's of years of effort into making black a race through the force of law and through societal pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The normal office hours ARE elite. They're available only to people who have been accepted into YC. The goal of the program is to make more of those (A) group people members of underrepresented demographics.
YC is a private business of course, but since they started this initiative, wouldn't it be even more efficient to make YC staff itself more diverse? Rather than doing segregated open hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an accident that America has particular problems with Black/White and Hispanic/White race relations. Comparisons of race relations in America to race relations anywhere else need to be quite careful to identify the correspondences. The claim that race is too murky a concept to pin down is generally invoked in cases like this; observed preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged races. If race can't…
Bullshit. Black people aren't discriminated because they're from a 'black race', there is no black race. They're discriminated against because their skin color is black. Discrimination on the basis of skin color can (and obviously does) exist without the existence of an concept of race. As for hispanic, that's an ethnonym, i.e. an ethnic group, that's exactly my point. This is how we talk in say the Netherlands about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you spent any time in or near a predominantly black church? There's one on my corner. There's white people there all the time. And did you really just suggest that "women's shelters" somehow advantage women over men? Suggested Google search: [lucky ducky comic]. You might also enjoy the editorial cartoon stylings of Stan Kelly.
You're putting words in my mouth. But if you want to talk about that, then yes, there is more support for homeless women than there is for men. But that is beside the point here. My point was to list a handful of the many counterexamples to "it is white male time all the time", which is a silly claim, at least as stated. Strike that example off the list, then. It doesn't change the original comment's point.
I had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy years ago and I am a woman on the street with my two adult sons. There is absolutely more support and better programs for homeless women than for homeless men. However, that is partly because there are a lot fewer women on the street than men, by a very wide margin. Which means that programs for homeless women serve a substantially smaller population, thus it is easier to provide something higher quality.
Part of why so few women are on the street: Family often makes sure a woman with small kids is not literally out on the street. She may not be welcome, but her kids are, and this gives her a place to stay, even if she is treated like crap -- for the sake of the kids. Furthermore, women on the street are at fairly high risk of being raped, something men on the street are not at risk of. So a lot of women will do whatever they have to do to avoid being on the street -- even if that means shacking up with some guy as a polite form of prostitution (an offer I turned down but have seen at least one other homeless woman accept).
My opinion as someone who has both studied it formally and lived it firsthand, and thus interacted with plenty of actual homeless people and observed them, is that men on the street tend to be in less desperate straits than women on the street. Fewer women end up on the street, for complex reasons which do not really translate to privilege per se. There are ways in which me being on the street is an exercise of agency that many women are denied.
Your complaint is kind of like saying "Cancer patients get the best surgeries!" It isn't exactly something to be envious of.
I do wish homeless services generally were better, mostly from a perspective of treating homeless individuals with actual respect, regardless of their gender. But complaining that homeless women have some kind of privilege is basically an ignorant statement.
As for your actual original comment about women's shelters: They exist as sanctuary for women who have been abused. A common way women end up on the street is they flee an abusive relationship where they are financially dependent upon the man. Thus, they flee for their lives with little more than the clothes on their backs. Although there are men who are victims of domestic violence, this is a much more common problem for women, both from the perspective of being assaulted and from the perspective of being financially dependent and, thus, finding it logistically difficult to leave. We don't have "men's shelters" in part because there is relatively little demand for sanctuary for abused and penniless men compared to the demand you see in the female population.
/public service announcement