Quote:
Originally Posted by BLM69
Could be that Tyrone doesn't like competition and doesn't let her do it
|
This is good insight and likely makes up the primary reasoning for most of the women who post on listcrawler and elsewhere who have such rules.
For those women who have such policies on eccie and oh2 and p411 that aren't represented their reasoning is likely not racism as the op envisions. More likely is that generally speaking certain unwanted behaviors are more prevalent among some groups than others. The same observations can be made about the age of clients in many cases. Thus, the women make their rules based on their experiences generally with certain groups or what they've heard from their contemporaries. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to this rule or any other. However, an example that the late black economist Walter Williams would use when discussing similar discriminatory matters was this:
"What about prejudice? Prejudice is a useful term that is often misused. Its Latin root is praejudicium, meaning “an opinion or judgment formed ... without due examination.” Thus, we might define a prejudicial act as one where a decision is made on the basis of incomplete information. The decision-maker might use stereotypes as a substitute for more complete information.
We find that in a world of costly information, people seek to economize on information costs. Here is a simple yet intuitively appealing example. You are headed off to work. When you open your front door and step out, you are greeted by a full-grown tiger. The uninteresting prediction is that the average person would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch. Why he would do so is more interesting. It is unlikely that the person’s fear and decision to seek safety is based on any detailed information held about that particular tiger. More likely, his decision to seek safety is based on tiger folklore, what he has been told about tigers or how he has seen other tigers behave. He prejudges that tiger. He makes his decision based on incomplete information.
If a person did not prejudge that tiger, then he would endeavor to seek more information prior to his decision to run. He might attempt to pet the tiger, talk to him and seek safety only if the tiger responded in a menacing fashion. The average person probably would not choose that strategy. He would surmise that the expected cost of getting more information about the tiger is greater than the expected benefit. By observing this person’s behavior, there’s no way one can say unambiguously whether the person likes or dislikes tigers.
Similarly, the cheaply observed fact that an individual is short, an amputee, black, or a woman provides what some people deem sufficient information for decision-making or predicting the presence of some other attribute that’s more costly to observe. For example, if asked to identify individuals with doctorate degrees in physics only by observing race and sex, most of us would assign a higher probability that white or Asian men would have such degrees than black men or women. Using an observable attribute as a proxy for an unobservable or costly-to-observe attribute lies at the heart of decision theory."
Why are so many providers racist?
