Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

Reverse discrimination

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Check our privilege
Social justice
Icon SJ.svg
Not ALL of our articles
Reverse discrimination refers to discrimination flowing in the opposite direction from that which it has traditionally flowed. The concept of reverse discrimination is the source of a good deal of controversy, not only over how much of it is justified, but even over how much of it is occurring. A lot of cherry-picking goes into the search for data supporting any reversal of discrimination, as well as oversimplification of related issues that ignores secondary social origins that could explain the results.

Claimed examples[edit]

  • Much gender-based discrimination traditionally favors men over women. The feminist movement, which despite its many schisms largely seeks to promote equality by sharing the advantages many men take for granted with women, is sometimes seen as a restrictive presence or even a vengeful one that supposedly seeks to take away the rights of men. This is really only true if (1) you tar the whole of feminism with the beliefs of a small fringe element, or (2) you think it is a man's right to crack "women-get-back-in-the-kitchen-jokes" without being thought of as a buttmunch. Certain "Men's Rights" groups are fond of calling the wahmbulance by claiming feminists are sexist towards them.[1] (See misandry and female supremacy.)
  • Some Conservatives and libertarians, particularly in the United States believe that affirmative action programs and other government policies set up to assist historically/currently marginalized minority groups unfairly discriminate against the majority in favor of said minority groups.
  • White supremacists often attribute any advancement by blacks or other "people of color" occurring after 1877 to "reverse discrimination." (See reverse racism.)

Actual examples[edit]

  • In 2012, there was some controversy over a failed sex-discrimination lawsuit in Iowa. A dentist's nurse had been fired for being too attractive to her boss; she sued and lost, as the judges ruled that the firing did not constitute sex discrimination.[2] One reason the judges cited for their decision was a policy of the dentist to hire only women as dental nurses; this "reverse-discriminatory" policy received little mention from people who protested against the ruling.[3][4][5]

Collective vs. individual discrimination[edit]

The existence of reverse discrimination is categorically denied by those who regard discrimination as primarily a collective act, group against group instead of individual against individual. In this view, there is no reverse discrimination, since the marginalized minority group does not have the collective power to discriminate against the majority. This view is sometimes extended to discrimination by individuals also.

The problem with this viewpoint is that even if one is a member of the "majority" group, that person can still face discrimination. Let's say there are two groups of people in a town. Group A has the majority of restaurants, while Group B has the majority of mechanics. If Group A and B both refuse to serve each other, whether you are in A or B you are going to be refused something you want, regardless of whether your group has more power or not.

See also[edit]