The two types of Feminism

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll say one thing. You're a lot more reasonable than that Loren Pechtel dude, imo.

It's like getting blood from a stone to get him to squeeze out the word 'discrimination' between gritted teeth when doing either a particular women's issue (or a non-white racial issue) but as soon as it's about men...it's no longer a 'social issue' or....some other non-discrimination thing....and the d-word just rolls right off his tongue. Why, it even becomes institutionalised discrimination at the drop of a hat.

If it's discrimination when A benefits over B then it's discrimination when B benefits over A.

And the issue with my willingness to call something discrimination is that the vast majority of traditional discrimination has been stamped out. The discrimination warriors are out of a job so they fall back on the disparate result as proof of discrimination when it's nothing of the kind. A disparate result is only a crude screening for discrimination, it is not proof.

However, we have not done anything about reverse discrimination, often even encouraged it. The result is most current discrimination is reverse discrimination.

Both are evil.

 

[Arctish]

I've pointed out one:

Discriminating against the 25 year old male because the 50 year old males discriminated against women in the past, resulting in a skewed gender ratio.

Suppose there's a company that has a history of promoting less qualified men into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women with more experience and who've worked there longer (I am using a real life example so don't try to hand wave it away by saying "that doesn't happen"). Suppose that nowadays the leadership has decided to right that wrong by ensuring every woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified man will be promoted at the first opportunity. This will result in 50 year old women scoring just about every promotion for the next year or so. Is that unfair to the 25 year old men?

You can't determine it because your scenario doesn't say whether the 25 year old men would be in the running for a promotion.

However, it is blatantly discriminatory as there certainly is a class that's being hurt here--the men who are competing for promotions.

But the women were hurt first, and for a longer period of time. They lost out on higher pay and career advancement when they were passed over in favor of less qualified male co-workers. Promoting them now doesn't make the harm already done go away, but it stops it from continuing. Their promotions are long overdue and will finally come to pass.

The younger employees, male and female, will have to wait their turn. How is that unjust?

Lets flip it on it's head: Only men will be promoted. Now do you see the problem? If making the switch (gender, race or anything else that's supposedly a cause of discrimination) causes an unfair situation then the original was also unfair.

If men were discriminated against and weren't promoted even though they were the most qualified, experienced candidates, then addressing that injustice is appropriate. It's not automatically problem just because they're men.

Suppose the business is nursing. Suppose male nurses weren't being promoted to shift supervisors and managers despite being better qualified than the women who got those positions. Suppose the current plan is to promote those wrongfully passed-over men at first opportunity. How is that unjust?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But the women were hurt first, and for a longer period of time. They lost out on higher pay and career advancement when they were passed over in favor of less qualified male co-workers. Promoting them now doesn't make the harm already done go away, but it stops it from continuing. Their promotions are long overdue and will finally come to pass.

The younger employees, male and female, will have to wait their turn. How is that unjust?

It is unfair and unjust to not just the male (if he is more qualified) but to the company and possibly society as a whole if what the company does is important, because the less qualified person is getting the position and is therefore likely to do a worse job. Unfairness to the 50 year old woman who was treated unfairly in the past does not in any way justify unfair treatment in her favour over somebody ELSE that isn't the person that was unfairly preferred to her. Perhaps the company should compensate her for her loss with some payment of money or something like that.

If men were discriminated against and weren't promoted even though they were the most qualified, experienced candidates, then addressing that injustice is appropriate. It's not automatically problem just because they're men.

This is a potential category error; a potential confusing of individuals for groups. You need to be careful to regard the actual individuals being affected. You wisely did that above (at least partially) and I commend you for it. Others, including the Pay Equity people I wrote about above don't. For example, just because the majority of CEOs are men does mean that all men are CEOs and does not mean that some women are considerably more privileged than most men, etc. Actual individuals matter and should not be treated by prejudice and proxy.

It is wrong to presume particular individual black people are more prone to violent crime than particular individual white people, just because more violent criminals are black, right? Well by the same logic it is wrong to presume particular individual men have more privilege than particular individual women, just because most CEOs are men. If racial profiling is wrong, then so is gender profiling.

 

[Arctish]

Getting back to Chanty Binx and the good kind of feminist:

She went into the building screaming in protest with the rest of her group and the group pulled the fire alarm. I do not know if it was her actual hand that pulled it. I do know she cheered when it was pulled. That much is on video. I posted it earlier in this thread. It is within the amazing atheist YouTube clip the article you pointed to pointed to.

She then did indeed wait for them to exit the building so she could mouth of at them and tell them to shut the fuck up.

Yes, she did claim to be in agreement with them on a few points while calling them names, talking down to them, and telling them to shut the fuck up, but why should anybody believe her at that point?

Here's the video again: mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event

And here's what happens in the first minute and a half. The video starts with Chanty Binx mid sentence responding to several people talking at once:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"<garbled>...working on for fucking years, and if you listen, you MRAs, MRAs should be... if you STFU and let me read my list, there's the fucking proof!
So, number 1, number 1... STFU for a second! Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of Patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women...
<pauses due to comments and questions from crowd which have gone on non-stop the entire time she's been talking>
.... we're working on it, and if you guys are trying to dismantle it, but if you fucking listen.....
<pauses as someone says something then quietly says>
The MRAs are saying we're trying to take away their rights? How are we trying to take away their rights?
<responds to someone else>
Can you STFU for a second, too, so I can read my fucking list so you guys can actually answer those questions.
<overlapping questions from crowd>
This is a list of the things that we're working towards now if you would STFU for the 50th billionth time, these are the things we're agreeing on, and these are the things that you've actually all got skewed fucking views on. You think that feminists are trying to take away your fucking rights, but as a matter of fact what we're trying to do is, we're actually trying to work on the same things that you're working on. Except the fact that you're too, you're just too busy hating women you can't fucking see. We're trying, we're actually trying to work on those same situations."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's more, but it's all pretty much like the first few minutes. Arguing back and forth while Chanty Binx reads her list, denounces patriarchy, and says the goals of MRAs match the goals of feminism.

If she was harassed after that, cry me a river. She brought it on herself.

By being uppity, right? Women are supposed to be all sweet and charming and never interrupt a man when he's speaking. They sure as heck aren't supposed to use foul language no matter how important they think their little girly issues are. They deserve to be called dick choppers like that one site does. Oh, and Chanty Binx probably really does dye her hair with menstrual blood so that other site wasn't being nasty at all.

To quote Andrea Dworkin and to paraphrase every feminist in the history of the world, fuck that shit. Women have just as much right to be as loud and overbearing as any man, especially when they're advocating for equal rights and arguing with anti-feminists.

Speaking of anti-feminists, I only skimmed the Twyla Naythias article when you first posted it but a closer look revealed a curiously sketchy story. After an idyllic childhood where she learned how to fix cars with Grandpa and make candy with Grandma, she goes off to college and everything is fine but then:

But then I notice the occasional strange looks I'm getting around campus. Other girls I recognize from Stangel Four South but haven't really met whisper quietly to each other when they see me and avoid coming into conversation range. In the dining hall, my Feminist dorm-mates all ate together but none of the other women would take a seat within twelve feet of us. It seemed so odd that they should crowd together like that while leaving so many tables completely empty.

One particularly miserable day, amidst the miserable cold and slush of early December in west Texas, a group of three dorm-mates veered their path away from mine and became the straw that pushed me into confronting them on the matter. Why were they always avoiding me and seeming to talk about me while never talking to me?!?

Because they had heard that I was a Feminist. Because they had seen me sitting with and eating with known Feminists.

They slipped away while I stood there, stunned, trying to wrap my mind around the idea that Feminism was something to be avoided. While I was part of a rather die-hard weekend gaming group, I wasn't really involved with any student organizations nor with campus Feminists.

The college cheerleading team was roughly half male (where high school cheerleaders were all female). I had female classmates in all my hard science courses and knew guys who were taking courses in Child Development and Early Education. Myself and a couple other girls from the gaming group were feared tacticians (there were four of us who weren't allowed to play together unless we played on opposite sides to keep things fair).

Wasn't EVERYBODY Feminist?!?

I wrestled with this revelation over Christmas break, trying to reconcile women AVOIDING Feminists with what I thought I knew. Feminism was a positive thing, right? Particularly for women?

I changed my schedule at the last minute, dropping French and Physics to pick up American History II (1850-1930) and Intro to Women's Studies. Surely these classes would help shed some light on this dissonance.

They did, but not the way I expected.

While the History class was mostly a rehash of stuff I already knew (being old as I am, raised by my grandparents, and spending a lot of time with my great-grandparents before they passed away, I knew some of it better than the instructor), Women's Studies was a real eye-opener.

EVERYTHING was 'oppression'!

Man holds a door open for you? He's expressing his dominance over you. At least one male in four was just a rapist waiting for his chance. "Semester" was oppressive because it was similar to "semen". That men kept female politicians from being elected. Men = Victimizers; Women = Victims.

All I could think was "THIS is what I've been supporting?" I asked the RA about this (seeing as she was a more worldly Feminist than I), wondering how such bias against men wasn't every bit as bad as bias against women. She tried to explain it away but, for a brief instant, I saw an expression of demonic rage flash upon her face.

It wasn't long after until hateful notes were being slipped under my door, my car vandalized, and even tampons and toilet paper being set on fire right outside my door in the middle of the night.

I didn't understand it then, but I understand it now. I had uncovered that the Feminism of the 1980s (aka "Third-Wave Feminism", even though it was only the second 'wave' to identify as Feminism), was not truly Feminism, but Marxism

What the actual fuck? People avoid her because they think she's a feminist, so she takes a class on feminism to learn more about it, which leads her to question it, which causes the RA's eyes to flash with demonic rage and the next thing you know, flaming tampons are being left on her doorstep because Marxism?

I think she left out a few details. And I'm sorry I said that other anti-feminist's rant sounded like a Chick tract because reading Ms. Naythias' article was like reading Dark Dungeons all over again.

Did you watch her interview with Cassie Jaye? Her reaction to MRA issues is to posit that it is a result of patriarchy and women are the real victims.

I haven't gotten to that one yet. Maybe tomorrow.

Bullshit. You don't band together in a natural alliance by protesting against and then shutting down an event and accosting the attendees on the street. She could have attended that meeting as an audience member or possibly even as a panelist and actually listened and maybe then given some ideas and try to work together.

Sure, she was being loud and rather rude but so what? By your definition she's one of the first type of feminists, the 'good' type. I don't know why you don't see it. It's pretty obvious to me.

If Milo or somebody like that walked into a Feminist meeting, blaring music and sounding off fog horns whenever a woman tried to speak, and mansplained to them how he is trying to show them he is working with them and what is best to them while calling them names and telling them to shut the fuck up, would you have the same view of him?

My view of Milo is already pretty low, so probably yes.

But I would object if someone mischaracterized his views, or lied about what he said or why he was singing, or if someone sent him a message detailing how they wanted to rape him and cut him open and pour lye into the open wound. I would not say he deserves to be doxxed or lied about, nor threatened with rape, torture, and death for loudly expressing an opinion in public while dropping the F-bomb.

 

[Toni]

nm

 

[Toni]

I've pointed out one:

Discriminating against the 25 year old male because the 50 year old males discriminated against women in the past, resulting in a skewed gender ratio.

Suppose there's a company that has a history of promoting less qualified men into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women with more experience and who've worked there longer (I am using a real life example so don't try to hand wave it away by saying "that doesn't happen"). Suppose that nowadays the leadership has decided to right that wrong by ensuring every woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified man will be promoted at the first opportunity. This will result in 50 year old women scoring just about every promotion for the next year or so. Is that unfair to the 25 year old men?

You can't determine it because your scenario doesn't say whether the 25 year old men would be in the running for a promotion.

However, it is blatantly discriminatory as there certainly is a class that's being hurt here--the men who are competing for promotions.

Lets flip it on it's head: Only men will be promoted. Now do you see the problem? If making the switch (gender, race or anything else that's supposedly a cause of discrimination) causes an unfair situation then the original was also unfair.

Loren, the original scenario was that only men were promoted.

Actish's current scenario states that a group of individuals who were unjustly denied promotion in the past due to some characteristic (in this case, gender) will now be in the front of the line for the next round of promotions.

Assume that over the course of a couple of years, there will be the potential of 7 individuals being promoted. There exists a group of 14 individuals who would all equally well meet the qualifications for the coming promotions. Of those 14 prospective promotees, 7 had previously been denied promotion because of their gender, despite being more qualified than those actually being promoted.

Shouldn't the 7 employees who were previously denied promotion on an unfair basis be given first consideration for promotion? If for no other reason than that they have been with the company longer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's the video again: mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event

And here's what happens in the first minute and a half. The video starts with Chanty Binx mid sentence responding to several people talking at once:

Did you read my previous post responding to what you wrote again in this post? I don't feel inclined to go through this again if you ignored me last time around.

By being uppity, right? Women are supposed to be all sweet and charming and never interrupt a man when he's speaking.

She wasn't just "being uppity". I already showed you the video of her screaming outside the meeting (that wasn't even an MRA meeting specifically), chanting along with the group that pulled the fire alarm to force the meeting to end, and cheering when the alarm went off, and then accosting people on the street by "reading her list" and "trying to agree with them" as yous say.

And you think she is trying to cooperate with them? As I wrote before, she was invited to the meeting. She could have attended, expressed her agreement or asked questions or expressed her disagreement and debated them a little. instead she pushed to shut them down, cheered when that succeeded and accosted people who had attended on the street.

They sure as heck aren't supposed to use foul language no matter how important they think their little girly issues are. They deserve to be called dick choppers like that one site does.

The people at that meeting said no such thing. Some reactions to Binx became hostile, and that isn't the slightest bit surprising. Reverse the gender roles and I would expect to see something similar. Send somebody like Milo into a feminist meeting screaming and shutting it down by pulling their fire alarm. Do you really think anybody would believe he is on their side when he then claims to be? When he then stands on the street and "mansplains" to them, claiming to know better what the women's problems are and why they are?

Chanty Binx is toxic, and is not cooperative and supportive of MRA issues, and I think you know it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The 7 employees who were previously denied promotion on an unfair basis be given first consideration for promotion? If for no other reason than that they have been with the company longer.

That scenario is better than what we see in reality with gender based hiring. Here you've got the actual people who were passed over due to gender and you are seeking to rectify that by promoting them unfairly over the next group of equally qualified individuals, now based on seniority. So I don't find your scenario to be you calling for gender based hiring, which would be sexist. So I am happy to see that.

But you are talking about promotion based on seniority, like unions insist on here in Ontario, and which I find problematic in its own way. I believe that merit, qualification, and skill is all that should matter. Having more time on the job may contribute to being more experienced and qualified, but not necessarily. The new job being promoted to may have applicants from the outside who are better suited for the job role based on experience elsewhere.

 

[Toni]

The 7 employees who were previously denied promotion on an unfair basis be given first consideration for promotion? If for no other reason than that they have been with the company longer.

That scenario is better than what we see in reality with gender based hiring. Here you've got the actual people who were passed over due to gender and you are seeking to rectify that by promoting them unfairly over the next group of equally qualified individuals, now based on seniority. So I don't find your scenario to be you calling for gender based hiring, which would be sexist. So I am happy to see that.

But you are talking about promotion based on seniority, like unions insist on here in Ontario, and which I find problematic in its own way. I believe that merit, qualification, and skill is all that should matter. Having more time on the job may contribute to being more experienced and qualified, but not necessarily. The new job being promoted to may have applicants from the outside who are better suited for the job role based on experience elsewhere.

I'm simply taking Actish's scenario, drawn from real life and assigning numbers and removing gender.

You're inventing an entirely different scenario and twisting it into pretzels to avoid giving previously discriminated against women the promotions they were so wrongly denied.

Why should not an individual or a group of individuals who had been wrongfully denied a position due to discrimination in the past be given the first opportunity at the promotions previously denied? Note that all candidates are qualified: those who were previously discriminated against and the ones who were not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You're inventing an entirely different scenario and twisting it into pretzels to avoid giving previously discriminated against women the promotions they were so wrongly denied.

No I am not. Did you read what I wrote?

Why should not an individual or a group of individuals who had been wrongfully denied a position due to discrimination in the past be given the first opportunity at the promotions previously denied? Note that all candidates are qualified: those who were previously discriminated against and the ones who were not.

Like I said above, you are talking about seniority at that point, which is something I disagree with for an entirely different set of reasons. I don't find "its my turn, I was here first" to be a good reason to promote somebody.

Nor do I see any justice in discrimination against one person because another has been discriminated against to the unfair benefit of a third person (who isn't the person you are now discriminating against).

 

[Toni]

You're inventing an entirely different scenario and twisting it into pretzels to avoid giving previously discriminated against women the promotions they were so wrongly denied.

No I am not. Did you read what I wrote?

Why should not an individual or a group of individuals who had been wrongfully denied a position due to discrimination in the past be given the first opportunity at the promotions previously denied? Note that all candidates are qualified: those who were previously discriminated against and the ones who were not.

Like I said above, you are talking about seniority at that point, which is something I disagree with for an entirely different set of reasons. I don't find "its my turn, I was here first" to be a good reason to promote somebody.

Nor do I see any justice in discrimination against one person because another has been discriminated against to the unfair benefit of a third person (who isn't the person you are now discriminating against).

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

Do you see any non-random selection process as unfairly discriminatory?

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

 

[Terrell]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

Indeed. And Arctish's example doesn't do it, but it should also be noted that you shouldn't get to take compensation owed to somebody else who happens to have a trait in common with you either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the women were hurt first, and for a longer period of time. They lost out on higher pay and career advancement when they were passed over in favor of less qualified male co-workers. Promoting them now doesn't make the harm already done go away, but it stops it from continuing. Their promotions are long overdue and will finally come to pass.

Group thinking detected.

People are individuals. Punishing one person for the acts of another is not proper--yet you're fine with it so long as the person being punished isn't from your group.

Lets flip it on it's head: Only men will be promoted. Now do you see the problem? If making the switch (gender, race or anything else that's supposedly a cause of discrimination) causes an unfair situation then the original was also unfair.

If men were discriminated against and weren't promoted even though they were the most qualified, experienced candidates, then addressing that injustice is appropriate. It's not automatically problem just because they're men.

Suppose the business is nursing. Suppose male nurses weren't being promoted to shift supervisors and managers despite being better qualified than the women who got those positions. Suppose the current plan is to promote those wrongfully passed-over men at first opportunity. How is that unjust?

You're justifying it based on what came before--but the people being punished were neither the perpetrators nor the beneficiaries.

Suppose Derec punches you out because of how women have treated him in the past. Should be fine--it was a woman, you're a woman.

 

[Toni]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

Here's Arctish's scenario:

Suppose there's a company that has a history of promoting less qualified men into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women with more experience and who've worked there longer (I am using a real life example so don't try to hand wave it away by saying "that doesn't happen"). Suppose that nowadays the leadership has decided to right that wrong by ensuring every woman who was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified man will be promoted at the first opportunity. This will result in 50 year old women scoring just about every promotion for the next year or so. Is that unfair to the 25 year old men?

In her scenario, the company had a history of promoting less qualified men (inborn characteristic) into supervisory or managerial positions instead of promoting women(inborn characteristic) with more experience and who had been working for the company longer.

Did you only read the part about whether it would be fair to right a past wrong by putting at the head of the line for promotions the group (women) that had been unfairly treated in the past?

Or did you not notice that a group had been unfairly discriminated against because they are female?

FWIW, that does happen still.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, the original scenario was that only men were promoted.

What you are missing is that the pool changes over time.

Actish's current scenario states that a group of individuals who were unjustly denied promotion in the past due to some characteristic (in this case, gender) will now be in the front of the line for the next round of promotions.

Assume that over the course of a couple of years, there will be the potential of 7 individuals being promoted. There exists a group of 14 individuals who would all equally well meet the qualifications for the coming promotions. Of those 14 prospective promotees, 7 had previously been denied promotion because of their gender, despite being more qualified than those actually being promoted.

Shouldn't the 7 employees who were previously denied promotion on an unfair basis be given first consideration for promotion? If for no other reason than that they have been with the company longer.

No. That's unfair to the others who are more qualified (odds are there are some) and who had no role in the past wrongdoing. The proper course of action is the promotion goes to the best worker, ignore the past.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

Do you see any non-random selection process as unfairly discriminatory?

We believe the selection process should be based on merit.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

A time machine.

Other than that, any attempt to remedy it is actually perpetuating the problem.

 

[Toni]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

Do you see any non-random selection process as unfairly discriminatory?

We believe the selection process should be based on merit.

Women who merited the promotions were passed over in favor of less qualified men. So you agree that is wrong?

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

A time machine.

How would a time machine help? The women would still be discriminated against.

Other than that, any attempt to remedy it is actually perpetuating the problem.

Really? That's what you believe?

Do you have homeowner's insurance? Does it have a clause protecting you against theft of items in your home? I'll assume that you do.

Suppose your home is broken into and you lose $50K in jewelry, electronics, bonds, etc. that you had stored in your safe. The thieves are not discovered. Your items are simply gone.

Do you expect your homeowner's insurance policy to reimburse you for your loss?

I am pretty certain that you would.

I am also pretty certain that the insurance rate for your neighbors would go up because of the theft in your neighborhood---your home, in fact.

Or do you think it is more fair to expect you to rely on a time machine and install better locks on your doors to prevent the theft in the first place.

 

[Toni]

I did read what you wrote. Which is why I wrote what I did.

If some individual or group has been unfairly discriminated against in the past, is there any remedy that you would find acceptable?

Clearly you didn't, because I have answered that very question directly, regarding individuals.

As far as groups being treated unfairly (not sure why you are bringing that in now when Arctish's example doesn't do that), I don't buy into identity politics. Either a given individual has been mistreated or has not. Them having a characteristic in common with others who have isn't good enough.

Agreed. No one gets to pick their inborn characteristics. People who are innocent of the wrongdoing in question shouldn't be punished simply because others with similar inborn characteristics have done said wrongdoing. People don't have magical powers to control the actions of others.

We do have laws, though. They aren't magic.