"I want to be treated the same as everyone else"

[draggar]

I didn't say that they all want to kill and murder but loosening up immigration laws, even completely opening the borders (which it seems that some people would support) would allow more people like that into this country. If we allow more people in legally, expect bombings like we see in Israel (car bombs, suicide bombings, etc..) in our cities on a regular basis. While most of the attacks themselves would be far less than the Oklahoma City bombings, combined it could be huge.

We now have a Muslim group (please note: I am IN NO WAY saying all Muslims - just this one group) in NYC using their freedom of speech stating that the creators of South Park should be condemned and killed (OK, the killed part is illegal) for doing what? Using their freedom of speech rights.

This was the initial point of the topic. They're using their rights to dictate what rights another group should have. Why should they be allowed to do that and then threaten to kill the group that is exercising the same rights that they're using?

As for illegal immigrants - they're here ILLEGALLY. That's why they're called "ILLEGAL aliens". Why should they take the benefits of our laws of the very first thing they did in this nation was break the law?

[Plaidman]

Because we're human.

If people want to be /fair/ and right in this world, people need to stop labels on all things. That includes borders of countries.

We all have rights to live and do as we please, as long as it doesn't harm others. There is no harm in coming to America, or any other country for that matter, if they are productive members. Check my posts. I always made that part pretty clear.

Its different of people come here to kill and destroy. In that case, then yeah, they get to deal with whatever country they're in justice's view of said attacks.

Not all people come here to be terrorist. This country is hard to get in. The people that are terrorist only see the bad side of America, and half the time they're not wrong.

Not that its right to kill, even in revenge.

But for christ sake, we allow even bullies to take what they want in school. We allow customers to treat us like shit because corporate makes us.
Helping others always gets the least award, or least respect. Even doctors and Firemen get insulted or hurt far more then they do get respect.
Is it any wonder that some people grow insane?

Yeah, it was wrong and horrible what they did. But we have plenty of domestic terrorists too. Mass murderers. People that kill and rape and are never caught. They're really no different then some terrorists. (SOME!!!! KEY WORD! SOME TERRORISTS!), other then the fact that some terrorist do have higher body counts, and get far more publicty.

A grinding moment of most humans is the urge to belong. To be famous. To make a difference. And to be KNOWN.
Those terrorist will always go down in history,. their names known.

[smileyeagle1021]

Illegals crossing the border into the USA can be a serious issue. We commonly see news stories in our papers about some "undocumented" and illegal aliens committing serious crimes (shootings, rapes, murders, robberies, etc..).

You know what else I see very common in papers?
I see stories about Catholic priests molesting children, does that mean we should punish all Catholic priests?
I see stories about Mormons committing hate crimes against gays or domestic violence cases against spouses (because divorce is so taboo and people don't get out of those bad marriage) does that mean that we should punish all Mormons?
I've seen stories about homosexuals trolling for sex in public parks, should we punish all homosexuals?
I've seen stories about heterosexuals doing the same, should we punish all heterosexuals?
I've also met plenty of illegals who with the exception of not having citizenship and the associated tax violations because of that are good people who would not hurt a fly and follow the laws to the T.
Just because one is an illegal alien does not mean that they are a violent criminal in the same way that one being a legal citizen makes them not a violent criminal.

[draggar]

I see stories about Catholic priests molesting children, does that mean we should punish all Catholic priests?

No, but something should be done to the Catholic church since it just"reassigned" many of the priests who committed these acts and extremely few of them were actually brought to justice.

I see stories about Mormons committing hate crimes against gays or domestic violence cases against spouses (because divorce is so taboo and people don't get out of those bad marriage) does that mean that we should punish all Mormons?
I've seen stories about homosexuals trolling for sex in public parks, should we punish all homosexuals?
I've seen stories about heterosexuals doing the same, should we punish all heterosexuals?

There's one big difference between these above and these people below:

I've also met plenty of illegals who with the exception of not having citizenship and the associated tax violations because of that are good people who would not hurt a fly and follow the laws to the T.

Illegal aliens broke the law by coming here - if they didn't then they wouldn't be considered illegal. It's also not about " not having citizenship". Many of my co-workers are not US citizens but they are here legally - resident aliens, work visas, etc. None of them broke the law to come here.

Since people like to take it to extremes, if I killed one person but other than that wouldn't hurt a fly - would that make it OK? If I robbed a bank, could I say "but I'm generally a good guy and wouldn't hurt a fly" in court and expect to be released? How about if I don't pay my taxes? Can I just tell them "But I wouldn't hurt a fly" and expect them to let me off the hook?

(Don't get me started on the whole tax violations thing, either).

Asking people to follow the laws is in no way punishing them. Are they punishing all drivers by posting speed limits? Are they punishing the entire food industry for making them follow FDA guidelines?

[jackfaire]

Living in California, I got use to seeing Driving test, welfare forms, and other government documents in a multitude of foreign languages.

California also was a Spanish speaking region before English which some people forget.

A friend of mine has family who have lived in Southern California since before United States of America was a country. They still speak Spanish as their first language and frankly while they are bilingual I think predating everyone else that came along later kind of entitles you to speak your own language and expecting others to conform to yours.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Alright, I'm going way back here, but I basically just remembered I was registered here, so let's do this.

For example - when I lived in NJ there was a huge outcry over the state police entrance exam. Not many people of a "minority' ethnicity passed the test hence more whites were state troopers. The ACLU and other minority rights groups complained that it was unfair. Why? They're given the same test and didn't pass - how is that not fair? So what happened? They started to issue TWO tests. One for whites and an easier one for non-whites. WTF? If I call 911 I want the best qualified person at my door, not someone who passed the test based on their ethnic background.

How do you know it's easier? Have you taken both? Did you actually read about why they thought it was biased, or did you just assume "well clearly these black people don't like the test because they're too stupid to pass it"? Normally when there's a bias in testing like this, it's difficult to explain from any perspective other than the group being discriminated against. It's the phrasing of the questions, not the knowledge that they want to measure. Unfortunately this 'race bias' - at least in the case of minority races who have spoken English their entire lives - is actually a socioeconomic bias. While it would be ridiculous to say that ALL white people are wealthier than ALL black people, as a general rule, it is the cultural experience of reasonably wealthy white people that is represented in testing, and an experience that isn't really mirrored by the black community as a whole. If I were more creative tonight I'd be able to think of examples, but they just aren't coming so, eh.

Also, affirmative action. While I agree people (ANYONE) should be given a chance, why should a company have to hire a lesser qualified applicant based on the color of their skin?

Because it often isn't a case of 'lesser qualified'. That is not how affirmative action is intended to work. It is intended to combat more subtle racism than someone who actually has the gall to say "I'm not gonna hire a [racial expletive]." It's not as bad as it used to be, but overall, "white" (particularly "white male") is a "normal person", default human, however you want to say it. Many of the often-white people in charge of hiring will not have any considerations about a white (particularly white male) applicant other than how they're dressed and what their resume is like. This frequently isn't true of black applicants. To many they'll have to make up for their "distracting blackness" with higher scores, or the employer will consider the attitudes of their customer base and hire based on that, etc.. Basically there are so many potential prejudices against minority workers that aren't present for white workers, that something needed to be done to give equal opportunity to people who put in equal work (and sometimes more). Affirmative action isn't meant to elevate those who won't elevate themselves--instances where that happens is evidence of a poor worker/student/etc. market, not of affirmative action being wrong. Do you know how easy it'd be for an employer to shrug his shoulders at a lack of minorities in his employ and say, "Well, there weren't any qualified minorities," when the truth is that there were plenty, he was just biased?

Growing up it was the CHRISTMAS SEASON. Even as a non-Catholic, I called it the Christmas season. But then, non-Christan groups demanded to be treated the same! On, we have to look at all these other holidays but we also can't call it the Christmas season anymore! We need to call it the holiday season! But we sure as hell have to recognize them as Chaunakah (sp?), Kwanzaa (sp?) etc.

This is a silly complaint. People shouldn't be culturally inclusive because you have nostalgia for when you went to a store and heard "Merry Christmas!"? Please. As someone else said, "Happy holidays" is simply more accurate. I'd get frustrated if people kept wishing me "happy [holiday you don't celebrate]". It's inclusive without excluding Christmas, and includes New Year as well.

Women demanded it (and received it) yet if I'm on a softball team I can slap a guy on the ass (as a "good job") but I can't do that to a woman for fear of being sued for sexual harassment. A grocery store I used to work at got sued because they didn't hire female baggers - so they had to start hiring female baggers but guess what? Part of the job was to go out and collect carriages from the parking lot - guess who never did it especially if the weather wasn't nice?

Re:ass-slapping. . .that's because men don't have a history of having their asses openly objectified by other men. They don't have ads posted all over the place insinuating that their bodies exist to be consumed. Nonsexual things are twisted into sexual things where women are concerned all the time--not just by women, but to cater to male fantasies, etc.. In a world fat with messages like that, how is a woman supposed to know the difference between someone slapping her ass in a friendly way, and someone slapping her ass because he intends to objectify her?

Ultimately I think that's not an appropriate sign of congratulations regardless of gender, though. You shouldn't be slapping someone's ass without knowing them well enough to be sure they're OK with it. And obviously if you knew the female teammate well enough to know she's OK with you smacking her ass, she wouldn't sue you.

As for the bagger situation, well, that's an isolated incident. Now, if those women who wouldn't push carts got moved or fired, then tried to claim it was because of their gender, THAT would be wrong. But saying "women won't go out if it's unpleasant and men will" is sexism, plain and simple. That was true in YOUR case--I can just as easily provide anecdotal evidence of watching a female worker wrangle carts when wind gusts were pushing her line, as well as anecdotal evidence of male workers refusing to go out in the rain (or going out, but standing by the entrance and not doing it, making the mentally-challenged guy do it. . .fucking assholes). It's not a gender thing, it's a work ethic thing.

If you're going to demand equal rights - then expect equal treatment

I'm going to stop doing what I was doing above, because a. holy long post and b. the other items have either already been addressed to my liking, or I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident debating it.

Anyway, the problem here is that these people are not getting equal treatment. They get discriminated against in representation (the biggest--how many white men are in government again? PS: a black president doesn't magically undo this), in employment, in pay once they're employed, in housing, in media, etc.. I think you need to read up on privilege a little bit or something.

[draggar]

How do you know it's easier? Have you taken both? Did you actually read about why they thought it was biased, or did you just assume "well clearly these black people don't like the test because they're too stupid to pass it"?

Because there was a complaint that not enough people from minority groups were passing the test so the state said they'll make another one that is easier and requires a lower passing grade just for people in these minority groups.

I didn't make any assumptions - this is what the state and the state police said.

Even though this isn't from the same time here's an article:
http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1851

State Police are going to lower physical qualifications for recruits to get into the training academy, so women and minority recruits have a better chance of becoming troopers.

This looks likes the result of a lawsuit, too:
http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl168.html

New Jersey State Police agree to lower its hiring standards to settle a lawsuit filed by the NAACP. Four-year college requirement will be delayed until after a 22% black, 11% Hispanic quota is reached. NAACP v. New Jersey, Mercer Co. Super. Ct. #L-002687-96, 38 (1855) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 398. [2000 FP 74]

Here's part of the reult of that lawsuit from:
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/corcaid.pdf

23. (a) The State Police agrees to invite each of the unhired African-American applicants,
and each of the unhired Hispanic applicants, for the 114th through 118th Academy classes to reapply
for the 119th or 120th State Police Academy classes. Each of the class members who reapplies,
and who is not subject to disqualification for any of the reasons set forth at page 2 of the
application form, shall be treated as an invited applicant.
(b) The State Police agrees to allow each of the unhired African-American applicants,
and each of the unhired Hispanic applicants, who had verifiably taken and passed the LECR
administered by the New Jersey Department of Personnel and were on an eligibility list for
referral for other law enforcement positions in 1997 but were not allowed to pursue an
application for entry-level jobs as State Troopers because they did not meet the educational
requirement then in force, to re-apply for the 119th or 120th State Police Academy classes.

So if a white applicant passed the test but didn't meet the education requirement he / she wasn't allowed to re-apply?

Because it often isn't a case of 'lesser qualified'. That is not how affirmative action is intended to work. It is intended to combat more subtle racism than someone who actually has the gall to say "I'm not gonna hire a [racial expletive]."

Affirmative action was created for diversity and equal opprotunity. The issue is that many companies feel afraid that if they don't hire non-majority people, even if they're not the most qualified, they'll get sued and have complaints about them.

As for the bagger situation, well, that's an isolated incident. Now, if those women who wouldn't push carts got moved or fired, then tried to claim it was because of their gender, THAT would be wrong. But saying "women won't go out if it's unpleasant and men will" is sexism, plain and simple. That was true in YOUR case--I can just as easily provide anecdotal evidence of watching a female worker wrangle carts when wind gusts were pushing her line, as well as anecdotal evidence of male workers refusing to go out in the rain (or going out, but standing by the entrance and not doing it, making the mentally-challenged guy do it. . .fucking assholes). It's not a gender thing, it's a work ethic thing.

It wasn't isolated - it was true with both grocerey stores I worked at (two different companies). Granted, two chains aren't an example of all chains, but it's not a one time thing. I've also seen in other chains (in other areas in the country) where they'll ask a female to out out and collect carts and she'll respond "But it's (insert not-so-nice weather type) out, I can't go out there!" so the supervisor will then turn to a male and tell them to go out. Yes, this is an issue with the supervisor (personally I would have told the first person to go out anyway, we need the carts in) and they should be dealt with by upper management for this.

Anyway, the problem here is that these people are not getting equal treatment. They get discriminated against in representation (the biggest--how many white men are in government again? PS: a black president doesn't magically undo this), in employment, in pay once they're employed, in housing, in media, etc.. I think you need to read up on privilege a little bit or something.

How many non-whites are on ballots? Let's look at who was on the last presidental ballot: (Listed as they are on this page: http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm - each one has a picture and I did my best to guess the "ethnicity" of each person - I'll consider Barak black since most people tend to go that way even though technically he is half black - half white)

John McCain - white male (Republican)
Barak Obama - black male (Democrat)
Charles Jay - white male (Boston Tea Party)
Charles Baldwin - white male (Constitution Party)
Cynthia McKinney - black female (Green Party)
Alan Keyes - black male (America's Independent Party)
Ralph Nader - white male (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace & Freedom Party)
Robert Barr - white male (Libertarian Party)
Gloria LaRiva - white female (Socialism and Liberations)
Gene Amodson - white male (Prohibition Party)
Ted Weill - white male (Reform Party)
Brian Moore - white male (Socalist Party)
Roger Calero - white (Spanish?) male - Socalist Workder's Party

Out of 13 candidates:
11 males - 2 females
10 whites - 3 blacks
(Since Latin American / Hispanics are considered "white" then I'm listing them as white)

If someone is not getting equal treatment because of their race, sexual preference, gender, religion, etc.. IS a violation and that person responsible should be dealt with - either internally (reprimand, demotion, additional training), or escalated if it continues. I don't have an issue with that - and it seems to be the point many people are missing in this thread. I am all for equal treatment. We're in the 21st century now, we need to look beyond color, religion, etc.. (unless the philosophical part of it infringes on other people's rights) - its when a group starts to demand special treatment (treatment everyone else won't get) based on those same reasons I start to have an issue.

[Kimmik]

California also was a Spanish speaking region before English which some people forget.

A friend of mine has family who have lived in Southern California since before United States of America was a country. They still speak Spanish as their first language and frankly while they are bilingual I think predating everyone else that came along later kind of entitles you to speak your own language and expecting others to conform to yours.

I could have sworn I replied... *damn medicine*

Except there were people there before the Spanish arrived. Remember the US and Mexico had indigenous people before the Spanish arrived. California schools *use to, I don't know about now* Have very detailed lessons on the Spanish and their missions. So technically Spanish is relatively new as there were tribes in california before the Spanish.

But since the US governments and State governments are English speaking entities, should not the people then be required to also speak English? In Germany I would speak German to interact with a government body same goes for any other country.


I would have no issue doing what Switzerland does and be a dual language country. But the problem is what language do we choose. If we go by we were here first it would be one of the indigenous tribes. That were here before Spain and Spanish speakers.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK, I'll concede to the NJ thing being bullshit, I didn't know about the particular situation. In general testing, though, that is NOT normally what's being asked for. I mean there's another argument to be had about why minority students don't receive the same quality of education as other students, and so they start out at a disadvantage that has nothing to do with being inherently stupid, but I don't think lowering the standards for a particular occupation is the answer to that.

Both grocery stores? Let me ask--were they in the same geographical area? Maybe the women around you are simply vain and entitled. It's that double-edged sword of gender roles, y'see. You convince women that it's their task to seem pretty and available for men, and that physical/outdoor labor is "man's work", they're not gonna want to do things that fuck that up. My experience with female workers is quite the opposite of that. The women who do get jobs like that work harder, while the men will often stand around fucking about on their cell phones, watching other people work. Somehow this doesn't lead me to the conclusion that "All men are assholes who need to be threatened with disciplinary action to actually do their jobs", though. It leads me to the conclusion that THOSE MEN have no work ethic.

As for the list you gave me of people on the ballot--thanks for proving my point! Those numbers don't look a wee bit skewed to you? You may argue that blacks/hispanics/etc. are statistical minorities, but women make up much more than 2/13s of the population. Of course that also leads into another issue of gendering, that women aren't supposed to be as power-hungry as men or whatever, but somehow I think you don't want to hear about subtle effects on the behavior and pursuits that discrimination has on minority people (i.e., anyone who isn't a straight, white, able-bodied, cisgendered man).

Even without the cases of blatant racism or sexism, there's the simple fact that minority people need to work harder to get the same status and the same respect as white men. They start out at a disadvantage, be it social, economic, whatever. Overall I think it's a social change that needs to happen, that the passing of laws will only drive people to resentment (as they have for you), but people want the government to do something, and there's not much they can do except what they have done. People just need to learn--minorities can be just as smart, powerful and beautiful as whites; homosexual love is just as valid as heterosexual love; transgender identities are just as valid as cisgender identities; there's not some fuckin' lady gene that makes women submissive and irrational with an obsession about making babies. Many people think they know this, but it's not reflected in their behavior. It's all nice in theory, but gee, I bet that woman asked for it; that tranny should've known what "that kind of lifestyle" leads to; "those kinds of people" don't have the same zest for schoolwork as white children; ha-ha, look at that hijab, TERRORIST, LOLOL, etc..

[draggar]

Both grocery stores? Let me ask--were they in the same geographical area? Maybe the women around you are simply vain and entitled. It's that double-edged sword of gender roles, y'see. You convince women that it's their task to seem pretty and available for men, and that physical/outdoor labor is "man's work", they're not gonna want to do things that fuck that up. My experience with female workers is quite the opposite of that. The women who do get jobs like that work harder, while the men will often stand around fucking about on their cell phones, watching other people work. Somehow this doesn't lead me to the conclusion that "All men are assholes who need to be threatened with disciplinary action to actually do their jobs", though. It leads me to the conclusion that THOSE MEN have no work ethic.

The ones I worked at were in the same town (New Hampshire, USA) but where I saw it happening (where the female refused to go out and the supervisor made a male go out) was in New Jersey. Worlds apart - while they're only ~300 miles apart the atmosphere is completely different (NH is extremely conservative while NJ is very liberal), ethnic diversity (NH is one of the "whitest" states in the US - NJ is extremely diverse), and even geography (NH is very rural while NJ is considered one large metropolitan area).

As for the list you gave me of people on the ballot--thanks for proving my point! Those numbers don't look a wee bit skewed to you? You may argue that blacks/hispanics/etc. are statistical minorities, but women make up much more than 2/13s of the population. Of course that also leads into another issue of gendering, that women aren't supposed to be as power-hungry as men or whatever, but somehow I think you don't want to hear about subtle effects on the behavior and pursuits that discrimination has on minority people (i.e., anyone who isn't a straight, white, able-bodied, cisgendered man).

It is annoying to me that we don't see much diversity but that's on the ballot - where anyone who qualifies can be on it so why aren't more non-whites, non-christian, or women on our ballots?

Even without the cases of blatant racism or sexism, there's the simple fact that minority people need to work harder to get the same status and the same respect as white men. They start out at a disadvantage, be it social, economic, whatever. Overall I think it's a social change that needs to happen, that the passing of laws will only drive people to resentment (as they have for you), but people want the government to do something, and there's not much they can do except what they have done. People just need to learn--minorities can be just as smart, powerful and beautiful as whites; homosexual love is just as valid as heterosexual love; transgender identities are just as valid as cisgender identities; there's not some fuckin' lady gene that makes women submissive and irrational with an obsession about making babies. Many people think they know this, but it's not reflected in their behavior. It's all nice in theory, but gee, I bet that woman asked for it; that tranny should've known what "that kind of lifestyle" leads to; "those kinds of people" don't have the same zest for schoolwork as white children; ha-ha, look at that hijab, TERRORIST, LOLOL, etc..

Why is it people always assume that white men have some sort of magical advantage over everyone? I went to a public school that wasn't that great (plus it's hard to concentrate in school when the person sitting next to you spends the day(s) taunting you with things like "I'm going to beat you up when we're outside" etc.

I went to a public college (under a governor who said "Public education is an oxymoron") and worked my ass off to get by AA degrees - sometimes working 2-3 jobs, going to school FT, and STILL finding time to take part in the college's theatre program. I had to fight for positions, I've been denied promotions for people who knew nothing about the job because the store didn't have their "affirmative action quota". Of course, these applicants only lasted a month or two. It took me years to get that position and stuck around for over a year, until I got promoted again.

I worked hard to get to where I am - putting up with $h!t when I shouldn't have to. I've been shot down many times in the past to. Being told "We can't hire someone like you" and when pressed on what "someone like me" meant, I was told point blank it's because I'm white (and this was for overnight positions as stores stocking shelves etc.). Now, if I went to the ACLU about that do you even think for a second they'd take me seriously? Would anyone believe that a large chain store would not hire someone because his skin was white? If you think people would take it seriously then I have a bridge and a statue to sell you near New York City.

I once worked under someone who constantly told me that he was going to rape me. Guess what? I couldn't do anything about it because sexual harassment laws were written for opposite gender harassment only, not same sex and many were written in such a way only females could file complaints. The only reason I stayed as long as I could stomache it was becuase I needed the experience (my first real computer related job).

And now I live in a very diverse neighborhood. I've had "go away cracker", "leave whitey" etc.. signs put on my house and car but the police wouldn't do anything about it because no one would take it seriously and they didn't consier it "serious". Since I'm the vice president of our HOA I know everyone who lives in our community. How often do I approch a stranger who is acting suspicious on our properly only to be called racist? Um, you're a stranger on our property acting suspicious (looking in houses, trying to climb our fences, inspecting cars, etc.) - the color of your skin has NOTHING to do with it. I've even approched white people doing the same.

Who is at the disadvantage? It's legal for companies not to hire me because of the color of my skin, it's legal for people to make racial comments and slurs towards me because I'm white. It's not against the law for someone to make sexual threats towards me because I'm a male? And yet if I complain I'm labeled as a baby, a whiner, and as a racist.

If we're going to have divsersit, equal rights, and "hate crime" legislation then they need to cover everyone, everyone needs to follow them, and they need to enforce them over everyone, not just for some people.

[HYHYBT]

Who is at the disadvantage? It's legal for companies not to hire me because of the color of my skin, it's legal for people to make racial comments and slurs towards me because I'm white. It's not against the law for someone to make sexual threats towards me because I'm a male?

Yes, it IS illegal. Improper enforcement ≠ legality.

[daleduke17]

She didn't ask what state my grandmother was born in. It was as if she didn't believe my affirmation that my grandmother was American...which I presume is due to her language barrier.

For your information, she was born in 1913, about 50 mi. North of San Antonio, TX. My grandfather was born 7 years later in the farm next door. He fought in WWII. His father fought in WWI, and his father's father fought for the CSA.

Both grew up and taught their children not to trust whites.

So they were racist.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I just. . .what the hell do you think is going on, exactly? Minorities have some kind of superiority complex and think they deserve more than white men? I'm not going to say you've had a grand ol' time simply because of your race and gender, that EVERY white man has a better life than, for instance, EVERY woman of color. That's not what privilege, or even racial/gender inequality is about. It's WRONG that you weren't given the means to report sexually harassing behavior at your workplace. I would've done it anyway, ignored references to women and emphasized that ANYONE can be made to suffer sexually threatening behavior. I don't think many progressives (AKA the sort of equal rights people you're talking about) would disagree with you. But there's the fact that, AS A GROUP, white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied men are "normal", and everyone else is "Other" to varying degrees. And there are privileges that go with that, even if they aren't readily apparent.

More white men are on the ballots because a. more white men get encouraged to pursue positions of power in the first place and b. more white men get the necessary support (signatures, etc.). There's also the fact that having previous, non-elected positions of power and/or prestige (lawyer, business CEO, etc.) make it easier to get into government, and those are often positions held by white men as well. There are a lot of reasons.

Basically, if this is an issue that GENUINELY baffles you, and you actually WANT to know why people feel they're inequal, then a general message board isn't the place to go. Look for activist blogs, progressive blogs, etc.. Although if you go in with the wrong mindset you probably won't learn much, since your initial reaction will be to say "BUT!!!" to everything, and look at it exclusively from your perspective. I used to be that way with disabled activism ("but no one associates that with disabled people anymore!"), fat acceptance ("but I can lose weight simply by counting calories and exercising!"), rape culture ("pfft, it's just a song/movie/book, it's fiction, get over it". . .kind of still true, really, I'm a shitty progressive), probably some other things I'm forgetting.

What I'm saying is that I'm one of those people who has the passion, but not the hard facts, the provable things, so I readily admit I can't argue too effectively. All I could tell you are the inequalities that I experience as a woman--which I'm not going to just go off whining about unsolicited. When you're not among an oppressed group, it's difficult to see outside your experience. You need to make an effort, from an angle of WANTING to understand--not wanting to debunk.

[Hobbs]

So they were racist.

It's not racist if it's true

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Except that the fact that there is inequality isn't being called into question here, rather, whether or not it's right that those inequalities should be solved by arbitrarily propping less qualified people up, and dragging more qualified people down based on race, gender etc.

If we're trying to end prejudice against these groups, the exact opposite of what we need is for them to play by different rules. Otherwise you're not pushing towards equality, rather, a different supremacy.