The article.

In Washington, more than 80 percent of HIV cases are among black people, that’s one in 20 residents.

…If black Americans made up their own country, it would rank above Ethiopia (420,000 to 1,300,000) in HIV population.

In America, AIDS is a Black problem.

[ Racist Reporting Source ]

I think s/he would be a pretty good way to say “he/she”. Unfortunately, I’m rather against the term, especially in technical writing. If 95% of programmers, IT workers, and geeks are male (yes, I made the number up), all you do is call attention to yourself when you contort yourself into saying “he/she”.

It’s actually insulting to women, in my view — like it’s giving them more representation than they actually have because they’re fragile and need the help. It’s demeaning in the same way that lowering the standard for a quota is — an admission of inferiority.

We all know that there are some women in these predominantly male fields, and we all know that many of them are quite good at what they do. Let’s leave it at that. They are still in the hyper-minority, so trying to pretend that they are in equal numbers when writing does nothing but expose one’s own PC insecurities.

It’s not really strange, if you think about it. I find it interesting because it shows how reality doesn’t care about PC. Some people have massive advantages, others don’t. Attractive, outgoing women will likely succeed…at life in general. They’ll get the most powerful men, they’ll be given more free stuff, they’ll get out of more tickets…the list goes on.

Getting upset about this is like being bothered that basketball teams always pick tall people. Waaah. Grow up. Oh, and don’t get me started about Hooters waitresses and flight attendants. I have much to say about this topic.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable. I think one such truth is that men and women being lumped together in a combat zone is a bad idea.

Denying biology isn’t going to make it go away. When you take young, fit, horny G.I’s and then put them under extreme pressure (e.g. watching your friends die while you’re separated from your family halfway across the world), you shouldn’t be suprised when they react unfavorably to women in the area.

Liberals just don’t get it. Ideal and real sound the same, but they are very different.

I’ve been thinking for a little while about a few instances of where political correctness seems to be doing direct battle with something…natural. I say natural, and not “right” because I’m not convinced that these things are necessarily morally correct, only that they are quite natural given human biology and culture. The question is whether or not this equates, in our culture’s view, to being acceptable.

Examples:

1. Hooters, as a general rule, doesn’t hire guys to be waiters.
This is pretty much universally accepted and few people freak out about it. It’s common sense based on the type of organization it is. Its main draw is attractive women. Fair enough, but what happens when a guy wants to work there and isn’t considered because of his gender? Do we have a legal issue or a stupidity issue (on his part)?.
2. High-class casinos in Vegas require women to wear high heels and heavy makeup.
There are many women complaining that the demand is too strict, isn’t applied to men, and is simply unfair. The first argument comes to mind is that, yes…it is unfair. But the more important point is that the argument seems to fly in the face of human nature and common culture. I don’t know of a culture where the women weren’t paraded around in entertainment venues, and to think that this would somehow different today, in Vegas no less, is naiive at best.

So if we agree that it’s natural, common, and accepted for these things to be expected by male patrons (and therefore hiring managers), where do we draw the line? Do we permit them to refuse to hire unattractive women? What if their breasts are too small? What if men prefer one type of woman more than another. Blondes vs. Brunettes, Latina vs. Black girls, etc. Can a manager really use the “popular demand” defense to justify an entire staff of big-breasted blonde women?

I think it’s an interesting question. I think it’s a binary decision for us as a society, and we should face the underlying truths revealed by our choice. If we deem it acceptable to judge based on the desire of patrons who gets hired, and the rules of “equal chance” are set aside using this power, then I think it being taken to the extreme should be not only permitted but expected. Yes or no, but not “a little bit”.

Anything in between is a failure to fully acknowledge the implications of allowing this sort of “acceptable discrimination”, and it keeps society in an unhealthy state. As usual, we as a society choose to skirt avoid uncomfortable topics. We prefer to pretend there is no issue until someone gets a lawyer involved. It’s quite sad, and proof that we’re not very far along as a civilization.