kimmy

Because they believe it is a worthwhile trade-off. Whether they feel more attractive, or believe it improves their chances of finding a mate, or whether their mate likes the way it looks, they do it because they believe it is of some benefit to them. That does nothing to alter the fact that it also carries drawbacks. Anyway, you asked when blondes have ever been discriminated against, and I think the question has been satisfactorily answered. And yet, they were wrong, as the results demonstrate. That Bates asked followup questions to determine an explanation for this bias does nothing to dispute the results. So... Diane Kyle, Cal State, researches the topic and determines that there is real discrimination here.... Brian Bates, University of Brighton, conducts an experiment that produces the same result ...and you know more about performing research than either of them? Isn't that a shocking statement? A manager who said "Single mothers may be seen as too concerned with their children and therefore not serious at work" would probably lose his job, and his employer would probably be open to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of every single mother who'd ever applied for work there and been turned down. But someone would say out loud that blondes might be too busy looking in the mirror to do their jobs? An excellent example of the sort of double standard I was talking about. These details were all explained by Professor Bates himself: In a study I did at the London Business School for the BBC television programme 4x4 , MBA students, the bosses of the future, were given six CVs with photos attached, and a job description. They were asked to assess six candidates for a managerial job. There was one catch. I gave half of them a female candidate with blonde hair. The other half had exactly the same candidate, but this time she was a brunette. I wanted to see if they evaluated her differently. Same woman... same resume... just different hair color. And different evaluation of her qualifications, and different salary. I notice that Mr Kagan is a psychologist, not a geneticist, so I can only speculate as to how credible this idea might be. But, supposing it is a valid idea, what do you suggest this means? If Mr Kagan were correct and there were some sort of genetic link between blonde hair and shyness, how does that relate to the topic of prejudice and discrimination and stereotype? As an aside... I suspect that Mr Kagan's ideas, regardless of their validity, might be extremely controversial. Because if there can be a genetic link between these particular superficial traits and shyness, then it is entirely plausible that there can be a genetic link between some other superficial traits and some other personality traits. If Mr Kagan had suggested that a dark skin tone may be linked with aggressive behavior, would people be comfortable with that statement? -k

...er, videos. -k

Well, of course, all I'd have would be personal anecdotes and vague feelings that such a thing might happen. After all, what serious academic would waste their career studying something so trivial? Well, one actually did: Recent research conducted by, among others, Diana Kyle at California State University reveals - amazingly - that while being blonde may boost your social life, it can also damage your career prospects. Blonde females are rejected for jobs more often than equally qualified brunettes. And where blondes and brunettes are given similar jobs, the darker-haired applicants are awarded higher salaries. It seems hardly credible that such a changeable feature as hair colour could so influence recruitment decisions but the research findings seem unequivocal. Certainly recruiters are not aware they are making such biased choices. In a study I did at the London Business School for the BBC television programme 4x4 , MBA students, the bosses of the future, were given six CVs with photos attached, and a job description. They were asked to assess six candidates for a managerial job. There was one catch. I gave half of them a female candidate with blonde hair. The other half had exactly the same candidate, but this time she was a brunette. I wanted to see if they evaluated her differently. When they had made their choices, the MBA students were asked whether the photos had affected their choices. They were convinced that hair colour had not affected their decision-making process. 'The picture for me didn't play a major part,' said one. 'I made a studious attempt to ignore the appearance of the applicants,' said another. 'I focused primarily on the CV,' insisted a third. But the results reveal a different story. While they had appointed the blonde and brunette almost equally to the job, they had awarded the brunette a higher salary. Under closer questioning, the MBA students revealed that the blonde stereotype had indeed affected their judgement. 'The woman with blonde hair is more of a wannabe - I would think she is probably an experienced secretary or something,' confessed one. 'She looks like a PA rather than a middle manager,' said another. 'The brunette does look more like one would imagine a middle-manager would look.' But, 's just jokes, right? 's just jokes. -k

I'm skeptical It has to do with what she's selling. -k

So, if young children are already coming to this conclusion on their own, how is ignoring it or refusing to address the idea beneficial? Wouldn't having some sort of formalized discussion of the topic be a good opportunity to put it in some sort of context? -k

Of course. I would never compare my lot in life to what it must be like to be black or aboriginal. Still, why should I have to disguise myself to avoid discrimination and demeaning remarks? And, I still believe the examples I mentioned (among others) stand as an example of an obvious double standard. A teacher once explained that an easy test for bias is to take a word (say, blonde in this case) out and replace it with a different word (pick some other identifiable group) and see if what you've written still sounds ok. Many media stories fail this simple test where "blonde" is concerned. I suspect that a significant portion of the non-white people you mention who've opted to go blonde are associated with sex-trades. The only blonde Asian I can think of off the top of my head is ... Tila Tequila. We all know why she's gone blonde. I would never compare my lot in life to what it must be like to be black or aboriginal. Still, it's given me some awareness of the way people use words, and the subtext. -k

I honestly can't make out anything she says other than "ooo-oooh", "aaa-aaah", "yea-aahh," and "bayybeee".Although, I saw a Fleetwood Mac reunion concert a few years ago, and Christine McVie (who I consider by far the more talented of the two women) just sounded terrible, her voice was completely gone, while Stevie Nicks still sounded as "good" as ever. On a similar note I recall an interview with Johnny Cash in the final years of his life where he was asked how his voice was, and he replied (with self-deprecating humour ) "about as good as ever." -k

What a pleasant arrival. Nice to see a new member providing troubleshooting information, when so many just want you to visit their crappy blog or buy herbal dick enhancements from their online store. -k

I don't disagree. But millions upon millions of jubilant African-Americans last November couldn't be wrong. -k

You know, even if the Presidency thing just hadn't worked out for Obama, he was still a senator. And an author. And a college professor. And a guy who was involved in local politics. And even without any of that, he still had that law degree to fall back on. Even if the guy had just taken his degree and become a fricken lawyer, he'd still be a successful man by any reasonable standard. Would you say for the same for some dumb-ass who wants to become a rap musician, fails, and operates the deep fat fryer at McDonald's? Seems to me that the "staying in school" thing provided Mr Obama with a whole lot of options in life that would have served him well whatever path he'd chose. I wouldn't bank on the same for some self-styled hoops star imagines he's going to become one of the less-than-600 players in the NBA, but doesn't make it. Given the odds, I think having a back-up plan makes sense. Having a highschool diploma, at minimum, is probably pretty key to having some alternatives if the whole hoopz or rap supastah thing doesn't pan out. -k

Minorities? Not in my experience... by far the worst offenders are other white people, and white women more often than not. Of course she laughed nervously. If you don't laugh along, then-- inexplicably-- you're the one who has some sort of problem. At least, that's how you're supposed to feel. "Hey, what's your problem? It's just jokes. Lighten up! Why are you being such a bitch about it?" But personally, I'm way past that. I'm simply not the sort of person who even cares about being considered a bitch. Here's the thing. Jokes are supposed to be for the entertainment of the audience, right? Comedy, levity, amusement? Somebody telling me a dumb blond joke isn't trying to entertain or amuse me. They're acting out some sort of passive-aggressive bullshit, or they're playing some sort of head-game, or they're trying to put me in my place, or some variant of these sorts of things. So they're not entitled to the sort of courtesy laugh I'd give someone telling some other joke, even a bad one. They're entitled to be treated just as boorishly as they've just acted. So, I tell them this new joke that's going around. When it comes to blondes, the double standard is unsurpassed. We're the only group in society that you can say any damned thing you like about without any fear of reprisal. The most politically correct sonofabitch on the planet won't say word one regardless what you say about the blondes. Why? Because we simply don't have the lobby group. And because (at the risk of inviting a tawdry double-entendre) people like your former girlfriend take it lying down. I recall watching one of those "profiler" type TV programs, where the expert detecting informed the suspect that he knew he'd been sick a lot as a child because of his pale complexion. Aside from the obvious stupidity of gauging someone's strength or health by their complexion, imagine the reaction if he'd made a corresponding remark about someone of some other complexion type. As one of the more pale of pale-people, this one really annoyed me. One time Belinda Stronach went to dinner with Bill Clinton and the resulting headline was "Bill Clinton's New Blonde." Imagine the equivalent headline if he'd gone to dinner with a black woman! Or how about the recent coverage of the Jaycee Dugard kidnapper arrest? Repeated references to the daughters' blonde hair, as if trying to evoke some sort of Stepford visual in the reader. Writers would be out of jobs for writing this kind of crap about anybody else. -k

'cuz we go way back. -k

My opinion: no, they are not. It is the people who say there's no such thing as race that need some reality. Same question to you. So ... if someone of darker complexion feels pride that someone of their skin tone has become the President of the United States of America, you feel they're justified, because race exists in our culture. ... but if someone of lighter complexion were to feel pride in the achievements of (say) Isaac Newton, you'd feel compelled to explain to them that race is useless as a scientific concept? -k

Oh, ok. Since we're all African, the "Afro-centric" school in Toronto is obviously redundant. And since we're all the same race, there can't possibly be such thing as racism. Since we're all the same race, obviously hiring quotas are now completely unnecessary. Since we're all the same race, "Black History Month" is obviously an absurd concept. What sort of idiot could have come up with ideas like Affirmative Action, and Afro-centric schools, and "Black History Month" in light of the fact that there's no such thing as race? --- Colin Powell said "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." Are you, Morris Dancer, or you, JB Globe, going to explain to the millions of people who found validation and personal pride in the accomplishments of Barack Obama (or Tiger Woods, or Muhammad Ali, or Hank Aaron, or Jesse Owen, or George Washington Carver) that they're simply wrong? That they're deluded? That since there's no such thing as race, they're simply wrong in thinking that Barack Obama represents them in any sense? -k

Oktoberfest is German History Month in about the same way St Patricks's Day is Irish History month. -k

Stevie Nicks, right? God, she's gotta be one of the worst popular vocalists ever. Completely unintelligible. -k

I don't see a problem with Black History Month in the United States. Given the history of the nation and the historical role race has played in the divisions that persist to this day in the United States, I think an understanding of the history of black people in the United States is probably an important thing for all Americans to have. Now, we don't have the same history in Canada, but we have the same divisions, and I don't actually know of the historical reasons why, so maybe that's an argument in favor of having a Black History Month in Canada too. I dunno. Is there enough black history in Canada to merit a whole month of study? I honestly couldn't answer that question. Should there be a white history month? I personally don't see much point. While it was never explicitly called white history, there's a tacit understanding that most historic events and achievements relevant to the history of our society are indeed the result of white people. I recall reading once where some academic was advocating that *all* courses should have a non-European history compoment. Science courses would spend a lecture going over scientific achievements of non-European societies, like ancient African kilns that could bake ore hotter enough to extract iron at a time when Europeans were still living in caves and trying to figure out if rocks were edible. And I thought "you know, that's a load of crap." If I'm signed up for a physics course, I'm there to learn about physics, not African kilns. I don't really need a "white pride" movement to pump up my feelings over my ancestry; I've never not felt pride. I've never had the experience of having someone suggest that I'm a lesser human being because of my European ancestry. (well, except for charter-rights, but she barely counts for anything.) I have, however, experienced on many occasions where people tried to make me feel inferior because of my hair color. Therefore, I've organized my own little "power" group; we're prowling the streets and mercilessly taunting brunettes. Be warned. -k

You'd have him tell kids that becoming a rapper or basketball player are realistic career plans? Do think he should go around telling kids to buy lottery tickets instead of staying in school? Because statistically, "lottery winner" is a much better bet than "rap music star" or "pro basketball player". And what are you, the alternative? One surefire way Obama could get kids to stay in school would be to tour the country with Oleg Bach and say "kids, if you quit school, you could turn out like my buddy Oleg here." -k

Nothing new. During the Chretien era, every Albertan heard their Liberal candidate offer this as a reason why they need a Liberal MP. -k

Indeed. If people are under the impression that this is the whole platform, they're mistaken. The comparison to sweater-vest is a good one. The English ad is just there to present Ignatieff to us in a manner that we'll find comfortable and reassuring. I mean, he's here talking about succeeding at innovation and competitiveness and international trade... who wouldn't like that? (well, NDPers and Greenies, I suppose.) It sends two important messages. The first important message is, "Hi! I'm not here to do anything radical. I'm pro-market, pro-trade, pro-business. I'm interested in the traditional kinds of things that have made Canada a prosperous nation." The second important message it sends is, "Hi! I'm not Stephane Dion." -k

Imagine my surprise at getting home this evening and finding that BC Chick has been arguing my position while I was out. Thank you, Chick. We don't often agree, but I really admire your objectivity. Thank you. Yes, that is it in a nutshell. I don't have anything to add, except to repeat what I said earlier about my quote being taken out of context. I already explained to you why using the quote in the context you are using it is dishonest, and you proceed to repeat it 4 more times in the next 4 hours? There's only two explanations for that, and neither speaks very highly for you as a member of this community. I cited two specific incidents and pointed to a double standard in media coverage, and asked "Why is race so germane to the discussion of one incident, but utterly verboten in the other?" Then I cited two more specific incidents and asked the same question again. It is also worth pointing out that I never asked that question in regard to the generalized topic of black-on-white rapes in that thread. I asked that question in regard to specific incidents. It was never intended to be a blanket assertion that "race is germane to the discussion" whenever a non-white person commits a crime against a white person. It was a question of what appears to be a racial double standard in media coverage of inter-racial crime. Here is the message I wrote, so that people can judge the context for themselves. -k

What I've written here does not contradict what I wrote in the other thread. -I have not argued here that Mr Anand's motivations apply to Indians in general, or to anyone other than himself. -I did not argue in the other thread that black men rape white women out of some desire to get revenge on white people. -at no point did I suggest that all cases of black on white rape were the same or that the same motives might apply in general. And so your big fat failure is complete. -k

You've utterly failed to make your point. You've succeeded only in making yourself look dishonest and foolish. Someone who doesn't like being told that what they've written is stupid should refrain from writing as much stupid stuff as you've produced this morning. -k

The context of what I wrote is that I was pointing out the media double standard that made a story about whites attacking a black man national headlines, while in a story with black attackers and a white victim, the media did their level best to omit race from their coverage. So yes, you've taken that statement out of context, and presenting it here to try to misrepresent my views makes you look not just foolish, but also dishonest. We're talking about one specific incident here. In the other thread we were talking about a general topic. And while I'm sure you're itching to claim that "black on white rape" is not "general" because it is only a subset of the larger issue of "rape", I hope you'll spare us that level of semantic idiocy. My comments about Mr Alexander have no bearing at all on the other thread. Sorry. We're talking about one case where the facts have been published to some extent. That you're trying to spin this moronic argument to try to relate my views on this specific incident to anything in the other thread is just ridiculous. I explained why I believe this is "a pretty familiar story". If you wish to try to argue that I intended that statement to be some sort of generalization about rapists, then you must be some sort of idiot. And while the original poster argues that it is about an Indian raping white women, I disagree. I have argued that it is a man in a position of power raping women in a vulnerable position. Again, pathetic. You've accomplished nothing here and yet come up with this smug attitude as if you've proven your point. You've produced out of context quotes and faulty logic to produce this trainwreck of an argument and then want to act smart? Hilarious. You wish to think you've caught me in some sort of contradiction, but in fact all you've caught is a bad case of stupiditis. -k

And now you're going to throw out of context quotes at me? You look foolish attempting to relate my comments about Mr Alexander to the prior discussion about black-on-white rape in general, because Mr Alexander is in a set of circumstances that hardly apply to rapists in general. While I have no statistics to back it up, I strongly believe that a very low percentage of rapists are fashion designers in a position of power over young models. Therefore your effort to apply my comments on this incident to the prior incident is a big fat failure. Is there anything else you'd like cleared up? -k