~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
sameCrime2
[–]sameCrime2[S] 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
affirmative action was supposed to help minorities. But in the Johnson administration, it was Hijacked to help white women too.
It was shown that affirmative action helps women more than anyone else.
Source:
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone (http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/)
Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone
(http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/)
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
White women are the most privileged group in the world. Nobody cares if a black woman is raped but as soon as something happens to a white woman it's the end of the world.
[+]leveret41 -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Wow how incredibly racist
[–]CaptSnap 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Im not backing everything he said but its been known for a while that news media lose their minds when white women in particular go missing or something bad happens to them:
wiki link for missing white woman syndrome thats their name for it btw, I didnt come up with it
[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Missing white woman syndrome
Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase used by social scientists and media commentators to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases involving young, white, upper middle class women or girls. Instances have been cited in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The phenomenon is defined as the media's undue focus on upper-middle-class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases of missing men, or women of color and of lower social classes. Although the term was coined to describe disproportionate coverage of missing person cases, it is sometimes used to describe the disparity in news coverage of other violent crimes.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
[–]thesquataholic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Do you even know the definition of racism?
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
f u you pos.
[–]CthulhuSpawn159 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If there is any term to describe feminism in the mainstream, I think "white feminism" is the best. It signals at minorities when it wants to, but most only for aesthetic. Seen far too many that love to tell you what minorities want, but haven't asked them what they want. That, and many that like to push ideas that really only place a blanket over the socioeconomic issues of minorities, but not the actual cause.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Feminism today is about shifting attention and then blame. Women are shifting attention for their own lack of success, lack of drive to succeed. Instead, they move to blame. Blame men. So they shift their inadequacies onto males and say it's mens fault.
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
No. People just lie and claim that affirmative action benefits white women the most.
In fact, blacks and hispanics get the most benefit under AA. Your article does not link a single fact or piece of evidence to show that white women benefit the most.
Rather, it just uses dishonest arguments by saying that the majority of beneficiaries of AA were white women.
No shit, because there are far more white people than blacks or hispanics in America.
But that's irrelevant, because we only care about individuals. Is an individual white woman getting more benefit from AA than a black or hispanic person? The answer is no.
[–]sameCrime2[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Although the gains to American women from affirmative action have extended in varying degrees to women of all colors, white women find themselves today in significantly better economic shape than women of color. In 1993, for example, the median income for white women was 16% higher than for black women, and the median white family income was 45% higher than that for black families (Bennett 1995). In states like Washington — currently facing a voter initiative similar to Proposition 209 — affirmative action has apparently aided white women more than people of color, be they male or female. According to state data, white women hold 35% of top administrative jobs in Washington, compared to 5.8% for women of color; furthermore, white women receive about 5% of state government contracts, which, although it is a paltry percentage of the total, is still larger than the 4% received by all people of color combined (Washington State Commission on African American Affairs 1995).
from:http://www.timwise.org/1998/09/is-sisterhood-conditional-white-women-and-the-rollback-of-affirmative-action/
used as a source in ideas.time link
[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Yes, and?
You don't seem to realize that your link doesn't actually prove that white women benefit more from AA than blacks or hispanics.
Again, no one cares whether more white women benefited than non-whites. The answer is obvious - since there are more white people in America than non-white, there will be more whites who benefit than non-whites.
The only question is, who gets more benefit from AA, an individual white woman or a black/hispanic?
And the answer is obvious.
E.g.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-are-ivy-league-schools-still-discriminating-against-asians-657081
An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1500 (out of a possible 1600 on the old SAT) had the same chance of being admitted as a white student with a 1360 score, a Latino with a 1230, and a black student with a 1050 score.
[–]sameCrime2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
there is a difference between Sat scores and admissionand hiring.
It is true that some minorities get lower Sat scores on average than white or Asians.
It is also true that minorites are underrepresented in colleges as you would expect.
It is also true that women get worse SAT scores than men on average.
But women, especially white women, are overrepresented in universities.
[–]desderon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Again, no one cares whether more white women benefited than non-whites
This post already proves you wrong.
[–]Celda -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's because the OP appears to be stupid and doesn't understand what he's even saying.
If women as a whole (regardless of race) benefited from AA, and most American women are white, then obviously more white women would have benefited from AA than non-white women.
That is just an obvious point. It's like saying white men benefit more from Social Security than black men, on the grounds that there are more white men receiving SS - no shit, since there are more white American men than black American men.
[–]desderon 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Whatever the reason, you are wrong.
Also, it is a legitimate concern, not just stupidity.
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How is it a legitimate concern?
American women benefit from AA, regardless of race. However, blacks and hispanics (including men) benefit more than whites from AA. Despite the OP's misleading claims that "white women benefit most from AA".
Please explain how that is a "legitimate concern"?
[–]leveret41 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How is this a mens rights issue and not an attack on a particular race?
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
White women were added because a conservative wanted to sabotage the civil rights act.
Because white women are a much larger group than black men, surely most of the benefits would go to them, they certainly dominated the conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_W._Smith
[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Howard W. Smith
Howard Worth Smith (February 2, 1883 – October 3, 1976), Democratic U.S. Representative from Virginia, was a leader of the powerful but informal conservative coalition which supported both women's rights and racial segregation
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It was a conservative racist that was trying to undermine the civil rights act who arranged that scam.
Two days before the vote, Smith offered an amendment to insert "sex" after the word "religion" as a protected class of Title VII of the Act. The Congressional Record shows Smith made serious arguments, voicing concerns that white women would suffer greater discrimination without a protection for gender.[5] Liberals, who knew Smith was hostile to civil rights for blacks, assumed that he was doing so to defeat the whole bill, but they were unaware of his long connection with white feminists.[6][7] House Rules Committee clerk's record of markup session adding "sex" to bill. In 1964, the burning national issue was civil rights for blacks. Liberals argued that it was "the Negro's hour" and that adding women's rights to the bill could hurt its chance of being passed. However, conservatives on race voted for the Smith amendment. The National Woman's Party (NWP) had used Smith to include sex as a protected category and so achieved their main goal.[8]
Two days before the vote, Smith offered an amendment to insert "sex" after the word "religion" as a protected class of Title VII of the Act. The Congressional Record shows Smith made serious arguments, voicing concerns that white women would suffer greater discrimination without a protection for gender.[5] Liberals, who knew Smith was hostile to civil rights for blacks, assumed that he was doing so to defeat the whole bill, but they were unaware of his long connection with white feminists.[6][7]
House Rules Committee clerk's record of markup session adding "sex" to bill. In 1964, the burning national issue was civil rights for blacks. Liberals argued that it was "the Negro's hour" and that adding women's rights to the bill could hurt its chance of being passed. However, conservatives on race voted for the Smith amendment. The National Woman's Party (NWP) had used Smith to include sex as a protected category and so achieved their main goal.[8]
[–]leveret41 -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
What dose this have to do with mens rights? About as much as me saying that affirmative action is systematic racism by definition.
OP is a race baiting POS
[–]sameCrime2[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Feminism after being reduced to vague claims about micro-agression started to claim that it was an intersectional mouvment. This proves that feminists use minorites as a free card to further their goals and call others racists while ironically appropriating the mouvment that was supposed to help them.
In other words, women are overrepresented in universities yet affirmative action helps them the most instead of being concentrated on the truly underrepresented.
[–]leveret41 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Seems like some mental gymnastics in order to justify a raced based attack.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]sameCrime2[S] 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]leveret41 -9 points-8 points-7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]CaptSnap 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thesquataholic 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CthulhuSpawn159 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]sameCrime2[S] 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]sameCrime2[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]desderon 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]desderon 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]leveret41 -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]leveret41 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]sameCrime2[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]leveret41 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link