Originally Posted by Piobaire
First, discrimination is discrimination. No "reverse" about it. Second, you are quite incorrect in just about everything else I have quoted. Men are more often assaulted, murdered, and raped (yes raped) than women in the United States. Women now make up a majority of not only undergrads, but also law and medicine. I have not seen stats on b-school, but suspect men still dominate MBAs.
Actually, I wasn't responding to anything you said, as I didn't take your post very seriously--it just seemed like a sarcastic attempt at humor.
However, since you have made a rather dubious and ultimately pointless socio-demographic assertion, let's examine it. Of course, men are more often assaulted and murdered than women--after all, man-on-man crime is by far
the most common form of these offenses! And, as noted, your rape statistics (if any actually exist) will be phenomenally skewed by the prison factor. So, it would seem that your points are pretty well irrelevant. Let's consider these crimes when a man and a woman are involved (we are, after all, discussing the genders here, aren't we?). In any domestic-violence context, women are roughly 9 times more likely to be injured or murdered in such a context than are men. (Those are the most recent figures available from Statistics Canada, and I imagine pretty similar to those for the US.) And rape--well, I guess we know who is the more likely to be raped in such a context! So, for the non-criminal citizenry, who is safer--men or women?
As for my choice of terms, "reverse discrimination" is, of course, discrimination (no one was arguing the opposite). It is, however, quite common usage to refer to discrimination that is in the opposite direction to that in the past as "reverse discrimination"--the "reverse" applying to the direction of the discrimination (a reversal from former patterns), not somehow suggesting that it is the "reverse" of discrimination.