I’d say you have this exactly backwards.
Only dating people you share a religious/cultural background with is no different than only dating people with the same sexual proclivities as yourself - you’re eliminating something that’s liable to be contentious in a dating/marriage situation.
However, once you reduce another person to a KINK, then you’re into racist territory.
Again, this thinking founders on the basis that there is nothing empirically racial about anything. tomndebb rightly points out that the foundation of brownie55’s racial preference is not rational.
We differ in that I do not see any relevant difference in choosing a spouse, an employee or a charity. Racial discrimination has been exercised: A preference has been expressed for the position on grounds other than character.
There are 3 relevant groups:
brownie55’s has excluded SG and included SJ and DJ in the pool of potential spouses. It is a clear racial discrimination.
brownie55 would be clear of racial prejudice had he not only included SG in that pool but also declined to express any preference between SG and SJ. In other words, the only consideration must be ‘S’, without regard to G or J.
Specifically, the claim has been a preference for people of similar values, who are easier/more compatible. Yet, an absolute bar has been placed against people having these qualities, who are not Jewish. Moreover, brownie55 would consider people, irrespective of those qualities, providing they were Jewish (DJ).
In answer to the ‘black hair’ question, the algorithm remains sound. However the example is farfetched and has no empirical support, with due consequences.
Again tomndebb and I differ as to the conclusion that follows. tomndebb appears to resist the conclusion that brownie55 has expressed a racial preference because of the pejorative nature of that conclusion. By contrast I am open to the possibility that this may be a circumstance in which racial discrimination is appropriate. Although candidly it’s not a belief I currently hold.
I suggest however that arriving at a conclusion with which you are not comfortable is not a sign of failing thought processes. Rather the contrary.
Without even getting into the rather (I would say extremely) odd claim that picking a spouse is no different than picking a baker,
why do you continue to make the absolutely false claim that there is anything “racial” about a selection by religion?
What race are Catholics? What race are Buddhists? What race are Lutherans? (Well, if you listen to Prairie Home Companion, it is clear that Lutherans are Scandinavian, but I suspect that the sampled population is skewed by the Norwegian settlement of Lake Wobegone.)
Why do you insist on misusing the word “racial” in your posts?
It’s a necessity in such debates. The supposed racial qualities are not soundly based. Accordingly, an inquiry into how racial discrimination is exercised will always encounter the fact that the core terms cannot be precisely defined.
Nonetheless, you have to bring empirical history to the meaning you choose to give words. In 19th century London discrimination against Roman Catholics often meant the Irish. Plainly that’s racial discrimination although the Irish are not ‘racially’ different to the English.
Similarly, the obverse of this position “it’s religion, not race” is that anti-semitism is not racial discrimination. Again, that’s plainly bonkers. It’s a debate where holding out for fine definitions of the words used will defeat any progress.
Oh, piffle.
If brownie55 had made a claim to date only Ashkenazim or Mizrahim, you might have a point. However, among every Jew I have met who expressed a desire to only marry a Jew, not one has ever mentioned appearance or bloodlines in association with their preferences. Every one of them has mentioned that their desire was to live with a person who shared their values, their religious traditions, and their attitudes toward God. Leaping to the conclusion that brownie55 was motivated by a preference for a particular ethnicity (without even asking for clarification before you launched your attack) simply indicates your willingness to jump to unsupported conclusions.
There are, indeed, persons (and societies) who have persecuted Jews, including non-observant and apostate Jews and their non-observing descendants, because of their ancestry, but it hardly makes your case to join with those people when attacking a poster for a crime not committed. To do so simply means that you are agreeing with the persecutors regarding the way that “Jews” think or behave. I fail to see why I should give credit to those who have persecuted Jews rather than to Jews when I look for information about the way that Jews think or view themselves. (Yes, I am aware that there is a certain cohesion among ethnic Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in the U.S. that tends to include even non-observing Jews in lists of Jews who have “made good.” However, those lists tend to include only people in the first generation of non-observant Jews–people who are closely associated with the cultures of the neighborhoods in which they were raised–and do not extend to third and fourth generation people who have no association with the culture, despite their ancestry.)
Now, if brownie55 returns to the thread and states that s/he does not care what his or her spouse believes about God, but that s/he wants a bright person who is sharp with money for a spouse, then I will admit that you have been correct in your assumption, but I will still maintain that your assumption was premature, even if ultimnately correct.
In short, even if you have guessed correctly in the specific case of brownie55, your basic premise is based on the error of attempting to define a religious group as ethnic based on the actions of people who have hated that group.
I disagree, finding certain physical features unattractive is not the same as finding a race to which those features are common unattractive.
You’ve made an iron man argument (opposite of a straw man) out of . In fact brownie55 has indicated compatibility and shared values are nice, but the dealbreaker is the question of being a Jewish person.
Now you tomndebb, may know people who have articulated reasons for requiring a Jewish spouse, but that doesn’t change the content of brownie55’s statement. Had the statements been, “I could only marry a person strongly sympathetic to Judaism” then he’s clear of racial discrimination. But that wasn’t it.
My response was to the statements made, not to people known to you, nor to the favourable and unsupported inferences you allow brownie55. He in turn is big enough to clarify his position without my prompt.
Hurrah! A chance to extend the discussion. If attraction to different phenotypes or whatever is a social thing which we should question, does this mean I now have to size up other men as potential life partners in order to avoid discrimination? Plucking rames at random to expand the point, Is Sampiro a bigot because he refuses to hook up with any of those nice southern girls who are desperate to find a witty and intelligent husband? Presumably Polycarp is to be pilloried if he does not wish to court one of the followers of Fred Phelps or other bigoted nutjobs? I’m with Tengu on this - picking someone you are likely to get on with based on social background or outlook is no biggie, unless you are deliberately doing it because they are ‘freaky’.
On the other hand, I certainly see where you and others are coming from with regards to the sweeping nature of “black people” as a group. I am making the assumption that this phrase was being used in the sense of “in general, with some significant exceptions, I tend not to find black people particularly sexually attractive”. It is entirely possible that it was used in the sense of “I don’t mind working and socialising with black people but I would NEVER consider marrying one. Ick.” The first is perfectly OK, but the latter I would consider highly dubious and indicative of a prejudiced mind.
However, if I try to make the situation a bit more value-neutral (at least to me) I can imagine that if someone came out with a line like “It is important to me to preserve my heritage, so I will only consider marrying another Hopi/Yoruba/Sephardim/Mayan/Finn/whatever” I would probably think fair enough - so by extension a similar consideration would extend to broader groups like “black” or “white”, although it’s a much weaker argument.
As with many other things, it all comes down to motivation, which in general will remain hidden. To be honest, if someone is privately prejudiced but never expresses it in word or deed, does it really matter? The OP describes his colleague as having several friends who are black, which would indicate that she is ethnically neutral in day-to-day life. Who she chooses to let into her bedroom, and why, seems to me to be fairly irrelevant. Life is complicated enough without spending a lot of time second-guessing people’s though processes.
Or (b).
Not at all, what he said was that Jewishness is part of the compatibility and shared values that he requires. Therefore, he would not marry a non-Jew, as they would not share the same values.
That would be where he indicated
right? (my bolding)
He noted the possibility of compatibility based on ethnicity (which pretty well indicates a cultural correlation, although it is possible to be a physical one), then explicitly noted the basis of his choice was belief, not physical attraction, noting also that he did find others physically attractive.
You are really not persuading me, here.
I understand what you’re saying here, but I think you’re misinterpreting what brownie55 meant by “values.” I don’t think he meant things like a generic belief in God, strong family values, or a commitment to tradition. Rather, I think he meant the values specific to Judiaism, which only a Jewish person would share. Such as a belief in the Jewish God, a strong commitment to Jewish traditions, a willingness/desire to raise children in the Jewish community. The people who share these qualities could only be SJ. How could an SG have these values? Thus, the limitation to SJs.
Gestalt
So we’re agreed that if brownie55 was motivated to ensure any children of the marriage would be born jews it is a practice revolting to all right thinking people? We’re agreed on that, because I’d like to clear this up before continuing?
If the argument offends your family’s values, say so. ‘I know you are but what am I’ is underhand and ineffectual.
Actually, no. I don’t see anything at all racist about a Japanese man wanting his kids to be Japanese and therefore only marrying Japanese women, etc.
marital preference != racism, IMO
Given that brownie55 is male and that Judaism currently determines the religion of the child based on the religion of the mother, it hardly seems racist, at all. If, as is likely*, brownie55 is Ashkenazi, then as long as he selected from among Jews and was willing to date Sephardic or Mizrahi, or other women, he was not even limiting his selection by ethnic identity, much less by race.
When your preferences do not ever include examples outside that set when there’s no moral or ethical conflict, it’s usually a prejudice. That prejudice could very well stem from racism, ageism, classism, ethnocentrism, whatever. I’d need a lot more examples of this person’s interactions with and opinions of other people before I checked off the “racism” column.
Does being attracted to only one sex make one a misogynist/misoandrist?
It makes one heterosexual or homosexual. Being a misanthrope does not indicate any sexual preference, just whether you’re sociable.
To me, it’s okay to say “I tend to prefer Latino men”. But it is not okay to say “I will never date a black woman”. Preferences are okay, but pre-judging legions of people you’ve never met isn’t. Nor is making blanket statements about a group under the guise of dating preferences. “I like a skintone like smooth mocha” is one thing, but “I like Asian women because they are so deferential” or “I don’t date black guys becuase they are too loud” isn’t so cool.
What if you substituted “white” or “black” for “Japanese” in your statement?