Typo. I’m an unusual angle using my computer (as I’m trying out a new computer chair), and I didn’t notice. Since “meal” is also a word, I didn’t have the underline to help me notice.
That said, autocorrect has the same problem. I wish that autocorrect would underline or somehow indicate words that it changed, as then it would draw my eye to make sure the correction was correct. For some reason, most keyboard software seems to assume you can notice everything while you go. This is untrue if you type fast.
In the OP I tried to be specific that the preference was not quite for a race, but for a specific property such as skin color. The disparate impact is still there, and in other contexts I would not hesitate to say discrimination on the basis of skin color is racism.
In retrospect I should have taken the same precaution with regards to gender/sex, by giving specific preferences instead of preferring “women” over “men”.
Here, I think you are mistaken. People are interested in being sexually attractive to (general) you, because sex sells. And so the ripple effects include for example who gets casted for a commercial or movie, or plot elements in a screenplay. Or more indirectly, the industry culture in fashion, advertising, modeling, etcetera. I hate to say it but even in politics and business, it can be a factor.
ETA: Just snowballing. It’s 1950 and like 80% of the population do not think of dark skin as sexy. So to appeal to their target demographics, advertisers and directors do not hire many actors, actresses, or salespersons with dark skin.
Having a thing for Mindy Kaling and Lupita N’yongo and Thandiwe Newton just for their skin colour would . IMO, just be a fetish, but not a bigotry.
Having a preference specifically for just lighter skin over darker skin and nothing else can be bigoted, because of the social dimension of colourism. Sorry if that wasn’t clear in what I wrote. It’s a fairly common bigotry worldwide, too. But I could also see it just being a fetish in some people. Depends on if they’re completely unbigoted along colour lines otherwise in their lives. So “not necessarily” would be my answer there.
You were not specific (my emphasis):
Skin colour is not a protected class. You went on to mention dark skin, but since it followed that bit, it was just detail, to me. And I was addressing the whole conversation up to that point, anyway, not just the OP.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Titles II & III: “race, color, religion, or national origin”
Title VI: “race, color, or national origin”
Title VII: “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin”
A person of color asks a white person out on a date, and the white person says “I’m sorry, but I’m not attracted to people with your skin color.” Could you imagine…? Why isn’t that necessarily bigotry?
It is discrimination on the basis of skin color. The white person is not only distinguishing between white skin and colored skin, but treats people differently (is only willing to date people with white skin).
Presumably, the decision to discriminate on the basis of skin color is not up for discussion.
No individual fault of the person of color can justify this discrimination.
ETA: I don’t think a white-skin-fetish makes it any less bigoted. A man who happens to be more comfortable around men than women would still be bigoted if he only hires men, even though his comfort level probably affects the ability to be productive with his team.
Because it could, theoretically, be pure aesthetics.
It may only be discrimination in the non-prejudicial sense. If it’s pure aesthetics, then it’s not unjust, which is a necessary feature of bigotry.
I don’t see the relevance of that.
Same-same with non-redheads, or non-busty blondes, or non-twinks, or non-bears … etc, etc. It’s not my fault that I don’t look like Chris Hemsworth, but that’s OK, because “fault” is a meaningless concept when talking about legitimate aesthetic preferences. People looking for a Chris Hemsworth type don’t have to justify not being attracted to me. I am not being prejudiced against.
I do not have a fundamental right to others’ romantic attraction, that is being infringed against.
Romantic involvement is a different case from normal employment, or any other setting other than entertainment casting. Aesthetics does, and should be allowed to, play a role in the one, where it does not, and should not, in other spheres. Same for gender prejudices, or sexuality preferences, or religion preferences, or age preferences, absent a legitimate reason.
Note: I’m not arguing that a preference against dark skin isn’t bigotry. I believe in most any real-world instance, it very much is. I’m arguing that it is not necessarily so.
I think the critical question here is, why is aesthetic preferences a legitimate reason to discriminate in romance, where a team leader’s being uncomfortable working with women is not? I think both the romantic and the team leader would say, “it’s not you, it’s me”. I think discrimination in both cases is relevant to what they are doing. In the extreme, the white person may not be able to become sexually aroused at all, and the team leader may not be able to do his job because he is so uncomfortable around women.
So it seems to me, either both are legitimate, or neither. I would go with neither: they’re both bigots.
Obstinate is refusing to change an opinion despite attempts to do so. Preferring not to discuss pure aesthetic choices (this the hypothetical case I’m talking about) is not the same thing.
If you don’t understand why intimate partnership is a different sphere of engagement from work life, I can’t help you.
Then he should cease being a team leader, not allowed to be a men-only team leader.
Work life and intimacy having different rules is good up until the point that intimate work is legitimate. It will be a thorny issue when prostitution is legal.
Why? If you open a business that trades sex for money, you don’t get to put up a “whites only” sign no matter how much you love sexing up us white dudes. Just like with bakers, if you are incapable of serving everyone in the community equally, don’t go into the business.
Right it’s going to be thorny when legalized prostitution can’t have any exemptions such as sex, age, disability, so-called race etc. There will be a black market trade in sex that will develop at that point.
There is an item I saw in the news recently that made me think of this thread.
There is a stripper that is bringing a lawsuit against some clubs because they refused to let her work because they had too many black girls working that night.
On the one hand racial discrimination is bad, no arguing that. On the other hand, the club management wants to cater to the sexual preferences of their patrons.
I am sympathetic to the stripper, but I suspect that the case will be hard to win.
Are casting directors in movies allowed to specify the race of actors and actresses they hire for a role? The club management will probably a make similiar argument.
Baking a cake for someone is absolutely not the same as having sex with them. If the government is ever in the position of telling someone they face legal consequences for not having sex with someone they don’t want to have sex with, we will have made a terrible error of some kind.
Indeed - the number of people who identify as LGBT in the US has risen significantly in the past decade, so unless people think that there are reasons why more people are becoming “innately” LGBT, the more plausible reason is that there are more people comfortable to express their identity as LGBT / fewer people repressing it / more people open to exploring something that they might not have otherwise. I have no idea what % of people might be bisexual, or willing to date trans people, if there was zero stigma against it, but it would certainly be higher than it is now.
I’m not quite following you - are you saying that pretty much every guy you’ve met would have sex with literally anyone who has a vagina? If so, I don’t believe you. Are you saying that any guy you know would never turn down sex with a 400lb woman or man (depending what they are into), or a transgendered person with the right anatomy? Would every guy you’ve met would use a glory hole if the opportunity presented itself, and none of them would care who was on the other side? Because if anatomy is the only factor it seems like that would be the case.