General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm surprised how many DU'ers think aknowledging white male privilege is somehow bigoted
This history shapes our politics, economics and society to this day and yet when it's brought up some say it's bigotry against white guys. I think us white guys need to man up and acknowledge this centuries old offense. Isn't this a defining difference between us and the Baggers?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What exactly are white guys supposed to do about it? They have the same skin colour and gender as people who did nasty things so they should feel bad? Ridiculous.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Isn't it especially unfair to those that don't?
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)At least in the thread that I think prompted this. The group of nasty white men (the NRA) was not mentioned. If I'm remembering correctly, a greater problem that also includes a lot of black men along with the white men was claimed to be an entirely white man issue.
I think if the OP of that thread would write a well thought out post that presents actual evidence and contains intelligent thought as to the cause of the problem that he or she wanted to discuss, you wouldn't have nearly so many people bothered by it.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Just as there is no such thing as reverse sexism.
Cary
(11,746 posts)just being nice to people?
On the Road
(20,783 posts)allows you to practice without feeling a sense of conflict or hypocrisy.
annabanana
(52,802 posts)This is not about you being blamed for what other white guys have done.. . .
It's your not realizing that there are a bunch of things that are easier for you because you are a white guy.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the times 20 -25 years back and see THEY have less opportunity. They fail to see, they (as a group) are still better off than everyone else.
tblue
(16,350 posts)It's gotten better but, as demographics change, some of the empowered feel threatened and act on their fears--fears that they will be treated like the rest of us.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But, it is always this way.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Split demographics any way you want and the only ones who earn less than their parents are men.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And you're post seems to say it's bad we are on the road to achieve parity?
If you posted stats about how wages have stagnated over the last 30 years, you'd begin to have some context.
Instead you frame it as MAN vs WOMAN. Sad, this grasping to maintain what privileges you've lost. Regressive nonsense.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Hard times aren't hitting everyone. They're hitting men.
Family Wages have stagnated because men's are going down to the same degree that women's are going up. The trend continues in part because of distorted and misleading studies of (and reporting about) "the wage gap".
The result is stressed families because all parties are frustrated that the men can no longer provide for it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you can google loads of charts on that- productivity up, wages down. Men allowed women and minorities to to take lower wages, to be subject to unfair labor practices for years- and now look where it got you all. You have to compete for jobs with us. I have no pity that you're finally feeling what it's like to be under compensated. Boo fucking hoo. Men brought this on themselves by enjoying an uneven playing field for centuries.
Instead of looking at labor's increased productivity and compensation trends vs profits, the REAL story here, that hurts EVERYONE, you are arguing that women getting what is (closer to) fair to them somehow hurts men. That is repulsive. And in doing this, instead of lifting everyone up, you're letting corporations off the hook and helping perpetuate the problem of low wages. I guess you didn't learn anything from letting employers screw over women and minorities. Don't expect pity from us as you guys are starting to find out how the other two thirds of us have lived.
The entitlement drips from your expectation that continuing to be overcompensated compared to women, just isn't enough for you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Here's entitlement: Because of a changing workplace, my sons wives now must support their families financially. When they have children, the logical person to stay home with those kids (and choose all the major purchases) will be the lower-earning husband. When the stress gets too much and the family dissolves, the logical person to have custody of those kids is dad.
That's privilege.
Your revenge fantasy is going to backfire.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And one parent can afford to stay home and not work, that's waaay better than the two working parent norm these days.
All the couples I know with kids, both parents work- even if the husband makes less money it's a lot more than child care.
Not knowing how fortunate living on one parents salary is, smacks of entitlement. HA.
Although if your sons are concerned their more successful wives will dump them, maybe they need to get their careers back on track. Kids won't stay babies forever, and child support and alimony will only get you so far.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)We have a very tight community at my older child's school. Of all the stay-at-home parents there, and there are many, there are dozens of stay-at-home moms, and TWO stay-at-home dads. I'm glad more dads have the option if they want to stay home than in previous decades, and I wish it were more an option for parents to have one parent stay home and that it would be whichever parent wanted to and not default to the mom. But it absolutely still usually defaults to the mom. And generally because the mom was only making "a supplemental salary" anyway, in other words she was making less.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think it's unfortunate, but there it is. Strangely, among all my friends coupled off, the woman is making more money.
But I know that's anecdotal, and probably because the women I befriend are really driven and smart. All the guys we hang with are much more laid back and prefer to spend more energy on their music and art and less on their careers. So, everybody's happy.
But yeah, I don't get why who does what would make you any more divorce prone or has anything to do with custody, unless you were brought up to be selfish and competitive or resentful toward your mate I guess it could bring those issues to the surface.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I live in an fairly affluent, but also low cost-of-living, area. Lots of families have a parent stay at home, and it's usually based on which one makes the least money, and in most cases that's still the mom. (I don't mean to be heteronormative here as I know several same-sex parent families as well, but since this is about questioning whether men or women make more/stay at home more, it didn't seem to make sense to include them.)
Nikia
(11,411 posts)The younger of which is 5 months old.
He has some obstacles that prevent him from finding employment that pays decently.
The only benefit to me being home instead would be that I wouldn't have to pump and could breast feed my baby directly all day. I have done a good job keeping up though (my son has never needed formula) and only have to worry about it for another seven months at most. He probably does better than I do taking care of the children all day.
I am a bit more thrifty than him so he generally has chosen to make major purchases. He did that earlier in our marriage when he made more than me too. My MIL stayed home and made all major purchases because she liked shopping and my FIL didn't want to be bothered with it. My grandmother stayed home and wasn't "allowed" to make any major purchases. I think making major purchases doesn't necessarily have to do with who stays home.
As far as I know, we aren't close to divorce.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)most of the women I know out earn their partners, and no one thinks it's a big deal. but they are not doing so well as to have to pick a stay at home, that's just not happening.
but yeah, to frame this again as a man VS women, and women shouldn't be earning more or else it'll hurt her in the end, is weird regressive bullshit. it does't reflect any real life marriages I have witnessed.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)lumberjack_jeff (23,249 posts)
14. Women's medical costs are 34% more, but their lives are only about 5% longer.
I support HCR and I think that removing gender as a rating criteria wasn't unjustified, mostly for political reasons.
But the disparate rates
a) are based on real costs
b) can't be equalized without raising the rates for men a bunch. The result is passing the costs of longer life onto those who don't.
The status quo might not have been sensible, but it's difficult to argue that it was unfair. The same rationale that makes 19 year old men's auto insurance more expensive, made women's medical insurance more expensive.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Can you at least read the stuff you cut and paste? Is that too taxing?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that's not progressive.
that's the enemy of progressive policy.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's grossly unfair that our higher risk of dying and crashing be reflected in our insurance costs.
Now I sound like you! A true progressive!
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you think it should not when it COSTS WOMEN LESS!
please call into Rush Limbaugh with your proposal, he might make you a guest host!
yours is a bastardization of progressivism.
it's borderline hate politics.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's projection.
Because of the HCR I support, women will get more care than men yet pay the same price for insurance. I don't really expect a "thank you", but lying about me to preserve your stereotype is a bit much.
Men pay 30% more for life insurance and about 50% more for auto insurance. Do I *actually* think these are important windmills to tilt at? Not really.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)...you actually support things that hurt women.
Life insurance costs women less, so you support gender neutral ratings on those.
Auto insurance costs women less, so you support gender neutral ratings on those.
Health insurance costs women more, so you support gender rating on that.
Women make lower wages than men, so you say that's a "myth".
your positions are MORALLY BANKRUPT, HYPOCRITICAL, un-progressive and arguably HATE RHETORIC.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and oppose anything that saves or helps women!
that's called being a hypocrite.
AND AND AND, this is all stuff you've said, in fact, it's stuff you've said in this thread, YES positions you TOOK!
i am not making this up!
your only objection is that telling others YOUR positions makes you look un-progressive and unfair.
to be fair, calling you un-progressive and unfair is my conclusion based on your positions.
but the positions are all yours -AND nearly everyone here will interpret your positions as un-progressive, anti-progressive actually, and unfair and as an enemy to equality.
don't resent it, you own it --they are YOUR positions. deal with it.
your positions put you more squarely within the conservative, evangelical orbit than here at DU or in Democratic politics.
own it because you advocate for it.
you are no friend to liberal positions --you want the benefits of liberal policies FOR MEN ALONE.
that's NOT liberal, that's not progressive --it's the OPPOSITE.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)in an apparent comparison to stay-at-home moms. Is staying at home more stressful for dads than moms? Why is that?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I did it for nearly 10 years. It was great.
Being unable to find living-wage employment when your family has become dependent on your income is.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)My Brother raised the kids and they are both terrific girls who gained early admission to top ten schools. They are the happiest and most committed couple I have ever known. My Brother had a great job before the girls were born but his wife made more money.
I know plenty of families where the Mom had the career and all of them are still whole and functioning.
BainsBane
(57,429 posts)WTF are you talking about? What revenge? If you don't have more than women and minorities that equates with revenge? Why have you decided that the cause of economic decline is women? What is the reason for the profound insecurity that besets you? Are you really so unable to compete in a world where women and minorities are not legally prohibited from unemployment?
Uneducated men make more than college educated women in today's economy. Your sons may earn less than their wives, but they are very much in the minority. And what is it about men that leaves them unable to deal with the stress of raising children? Are you suggesting they are weaker or less emotionally stable?
The economy is tough. Being a white man no longer means the world is handed to you. You have to compete with everyone else. It's unfortunate you feel your sons are so unequipped to do so.
No one forces you or your sons to marry. If you all resent women so much, leave us alone. We really don't mind at all.
Helen Reddy
(998 posts)Brava and a standing O!
Nothing grates me more than this oh-woe-is-me-the -man, when most foolishness is/has been caused by them. Succinctly spoken and you know your stuff.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Tks Helen, I applaud you as well! :claps:
I love how he admits he has a huge personal issue with his daughter in law making more than his son. I guess is women's fault his son didn't have his career shit together enough to out earn her- as most capable men do. He seems to be promoting this inequity as a desirable norm, LOL.
God help us if we could only make below what the looseriest of men make.
Helen Reddy
(998 posts)crazyrayray
(19 posts)I think that is a bogus chart, or it uses ballots that are out of parameters. I can make a chart say whatever I want to if I poll the right people.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)listen to the reaction to your post and you'll hear it.
from your graph, it's clear you want us to improve the wages of women so that they aren't below that of men.
thank you. most of us want that as well! 
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html
On the plus side, at least now men's wages will stop collapsing to meet women's.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
peddle your wares somewhere else.
until you stop proposing to charge women MORE for health insurance than men, you and i HAVE NOTHING to discuss.
just go away from me, i don't come here to debate with republican talking points, and cloaking them in Men's Rights BS doesn't make them any more appealing to this man.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Because you're clearly unwilling to allow me to do the educating.
Men's wages have collapsed in the last 40 years to about the same degree that women's have increased. Those wages are now at parity, so whatever wages are going to do, they will do in tandem.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)than men, to this day. It sounds like you are complaining that women make marginally more than we used to, but women still make a LOT LESS than men do. What was your complaint again?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Men and women who make the same choices earn the same pay. The differential is entirely due to career choice and the fact that men work far more hours than women.
From here on out, now that men's wages have fallen to meet women's, wages will rise and fall in tandem.
yardwork
(68,985 posts)There is still a large disparity in wages between men and women even when career choice and other variables are controlled. The difference in wages is NOT attributable to women taking time off to have children, etc.
Here's yet another link, which I'm sure you will ignore as you have all the others:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/
AAUW took a closer look at the difference between men and women who enter the same occupation. The apples-to-apples comparison found that women still earned about 7% less than their male counterparts. Give their similarities, this pay gap is unexplained, and gender discrimination is one potential factor, the study says.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's a myth.
If it were a byproduct of sexism, then unmarried childless women wouldn't make 8% more than men doing the same jobs.
BainsBane
(57,429 posts)yet evidently think a Y chromosome entitles you to earn more than the rest of us. Do you suppose decedents of slaves should forever earn less just so you can feel like a man? Get over yourself. You have to compete with people a lot smarter than you now. You don't get things handed to you just by virtue of being born male and white. You now have to earn it.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,186 posts)Prejudice and privlege runs so deep people aren't even AWARE of it..........
bayareamike
(602 posts)because I think it's way too easy to paint with broad strokes. Me personally, sure I acknowledge that as a white male I haven't had to deal with racism from other white people (although because I live in a highly diverse area I have been the victim of racism from people who aren't white and it's just as wrong), or institutional racism, but in other areas I definitely wasn't privileged. I'm a first generation college student, my dad is a blue collar worker and mom is a preschool teacher, etc.
I guess my point is that while acknowledging that white privilege is real, it's important not to oversimplify privilege in general -- although in these types of discussions it's all too easy to do.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)"This is not about you being blamed for what other white guys have done."
:-/
MKITEM
(53 posts)At the founding of this country many white males didn't have the vote because they were not land owners. The inequality is about privilege, not "white male" privilege.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)MKITEM
(53 posts)dsc
(53,323 posts)but when white male non property owners got their right to vote black property owners often ended up losing theirs.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)after the Mexican-American war was over;
and black farmers in most of American history, especially freed slaves who thought they could move west, get a plot of land, settle down and make something for themselves...
treestar
(82,383 posts)white men were the first to get equality.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I am not arguing with anyone in this thread… but would add that class/economic status may be considered the preeminent factor when discussing privilege.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
billh58
(6,655 posts)the descendants of the 4 million slaves on plantations at the founding of this country. Those white males who did not own land, also were not slaves who were bred like cattle to "improve the stock."
The "didn't have the vote because they were not land owners?" Big fucking deal, they likely had a slave or two, along with their cattle and pigs. Tell me again when women were allowed to vote in this country? Tell me again when African Americans were allowed to vote in this country? Tell me again how many white privileged males were lynched in this country. Tell me again how many white privileged males have become pregnant and been forced to raise a child on their own? When white privileged males make more money than a woman OR a non-white male doing the very same job, they must suffer horribly.
And after the Civil War, the descendents of these poor underprivileged white males went on to form the Ku Klux Klan, and to implement a form of American apartheid that lasted for almost another hundred years. You can still find remnants of these racist asshats in pockets of this country.
Now tell me again how these underprivileged white males have suffered, from the founding of this country until the present?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Does this make sense to you, in retrospect? It shouldn't.
billh58
(6,655 posts)to me. Plantation owners, on occasion, "rewarded" their non-land holder employee slave masters with gifts of slaves -- especially female slaves. The Southern "custom" of having "house slaves" often extended to non-land owners who lived and worked on plantations.
In the antebellum South, almost ALL white people benefited in one way or another from the institution of slavery whether they actually "owned" slaves or not. There was a profitable bounty system which paid for the return of escaped slaves. Slaves were "borrowed" from plantations by townships for civil construction projects and managed by white non-land owners.
I understand your logic, but the truth on the ground was not as cut and dried. Slaves were, in fact, treated the same as as livestock, and in some cases worse. In a very real sense, and under the Pottery Barn rule, every white person in the antebellum South owned slaves.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)What is to be gained by falsifying history in order to deflect blame from slaveowners?
billh58
(6,655 posts)Most plantations had direct employees: blacksmiths, slave and livestock handlers, field overseers, etc. Almost all of these live-in employees had their own houses on the plantation, AND their own slaves. The fact remains, owning land was not a prerequisite for owning slaves, anymore than it was for owning a cow, or a pig, or a plow.
It appears that you, and not me, would like to embellish history to make antebellum Southern non-land holder whites appear as pure as the driven snow. As I stated earlier, all white people during this period had the "privilege" to order slaves around, to abuse them, and to ridicule them at will. In that sense, all whites "owned" slaves -- with, or without the receipt of purchase.
I am not trying to "deflect blame from slave owners," but to extend the blame to the entire mindset and culture which allowed slavery to flourish in the first place. Stating categorically that only rich white land owners "owned" slaves is at best apologetic of the culture, and at worst a total denial of this horrible blight on the history of the USA.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It was a direct outgrowth to the peonage system of feudal Europe.
Read a history book. Your argument is fabricated whole-cloth.
billh58
(6,655 posts)If attacking my education and intelligence is the best that you have, then it is pointless to continue this discussion with you.
Let me just leave you with this: if you truly believe that the rich plantation owners were the only whites who owned slaves in the antebellum South, and that they are solely to blame for the horrors of slavery, then I highly suspect that you have other motives besides being "historically accurate."
Take care, and be well...
Romulox
(25,960 posts) TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Nor did everyone live in the antebellum south. I have never seen any indication that those who owned slaves were not a small minority compared to the population at large.
Most certainly slaves were treated as livestock but everybody nor even most owned. Probably because they too were too poor if for no other reason, regardless of inclination.
If you didn't live in the south, I imagine slavery would be problematic just because of taking the floor out of labor, even if you were the most racist son of a bitch in the world. I'd imagine plenty hated slavery and black folks with a white hot passion. I also imagine there were whites in the south that loved black folks and hated slavery and all kinds of different thoughts.
Plenty had to be going on with diversity of opinion with white folks or slavery wouldn't have been ended and wouldn't be hotly debated the entire time. The Pottery Barn rule I assume is you broke it, you buy it (don't know much about it, don't shop there) and control over what was broken was in the hands of the few and the most powerful and wealthy. Many didn't even have the vote, to be given even that level of owning circumstances.
At some point, you pretty much get into a corruption of blood situation here, to be born alive and white is to be guilty. I'm a descendant of master, slave, and dispossessed but cannot go that far.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I have no idea why this idiotic idea still permeates the left. It shoud have died decades ago.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)... whatever other bias.
For instance. I love kids and would have pursued a career in child education if white males who are interested in young children weren't viewed with such great suspicion.
All I know is that I've had my share of unfair blockades in my life and given where I am in my life I don't exactly feel like it was handed to me on a silver platter.
Overall I think the knot is far to complicated to parse out on an individual basis.
Then there are people who are just primed to be victims their whole lives... which in know means implies that people aren't held down because they are not white or not male... but there is certainly a subset of the population that assume that circumstances are against them because they are not white or not male... but it is in fact something they themselves are responsible for.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In no way does being a man make life easier.
Warpy
(114,403 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)You can't have it both ways, you can't have an OP attempting to wrangle emotional reactions out of a demographic and then just turn right around and pretend that it isn't.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or work to change it.
many white males have done just that.
they didn't say, "well, wtf am I supposed to do about it?"
no, they did something.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think originally talking about privilege was trying to be a way to recognize that, but the water got a little toxic. The point is not to shame us white males into feeling bad about ourselves but to get us to shut the fuck up for five minutes and listen to somebody else's point of view.
Stop worrying so much about "not being racist" or "not being sexist" and actually listen to what people who are calling you that are saying. I don't get to decide how other people react to what I say and write, and if I want people not to be offended it's a damn good idea to listen when they are rather than trying to explain why they shouldn't be.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Repeatedly. I really don't think it's me that has to "shut the fuck up for five minutes".
That's not the point. No one says feel guilty - it is just that you don't have to deal with prejudice.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and open to listening to the reasons why those who look different than us might have a problem with us.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Living an ordinary life free from interference is not a privilege it is a right.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)As a progressive, it seems to me that you should be outraged when others suffer the systematic denial of what you identify as the right to an ordinary life free from interference.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)More upset than how much, exactly? What do you suppose my level of anger actually *is* regarding the denial of basic rights to people and why do you think my refusal to accept the attempt to recast rights as privileges provides you with any information regarding said emotion?
Bizarre response!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)This has nothing to do with being personally guilty.
Race and gender are not biological constants (unlike color or sex), but are social constructions. Our identities are constructed and perpetually reconstructed by conforming conduct. In our society, leadership is constructed as white, male, and Christian. This gives white men an advantage in society that others do not have. It doesn't mean we are somehow conspirators in the system. Rather, we unwittingly work to construct and reconstruct the patriarchy, usually without being aware of it.
BainsBane
(57,429 posts)about how they are the targets of racism.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Any threads about the topic here get pretty ugly, as they're often chock full of people who don't think such a thing exists.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)It doesn't exist.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so you are informed.
thank you for your post. as a white person, not male, but white, i understand the privilege i have.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is interesting. maybe one of the men will let us know. good question. since i would like to eliminate the rampant sexism on du, i listen to the men and try to respect what they ask in this regard.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I don't think it's appropriate under any circumstances to tell someone they should behave like whatever is expected of their gender. The fact that so many people resort to it because the phrase is overused doesn't really excuse it although you can give someone the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance rather than misandry. Either way it's still sexist, albeit a form of low level sexism.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)is the realization that rather than masculine as the default human and feminine as the Saidian Other, both genders are social constructs. It turns out that men are as limited by our constructed gender identities as women are. Being in charge--especially of females and non-whites--creates an obligation to be in charge, or "manly." Patriarchy creates constrictive racial and gender roles for everyone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The patriarchy also produced the male-only draft, a workplace in which 92% of fatalities are men and the "Women, Infants and Children" nutrition program which by obvious omission expresses the social understanding of which demographic is undeserving of a meal.
I suspect your next paragraph, the one starting with "So..." might elicit disagreement.
For instance, this train of thought when applied by mostly female teachers in primary school yields policies and educational goals which treats normal boy development as a pathology.
The social constructs of horseplay, physical activity and friendly competition are marginalized in search of the "neutral" social construct applied by those whose neutrality is not guaranteed.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I acknowledge that SOME white people have it. When you say males of a specific color all have it I find that a bit silly.
I see things as bigoted when we put all people from one group into a box.
And what does 'man up' mean? Is it opposite of what woman up means 
Some people in this society have benefits many others do not - to say someone who is white has a less hard time because of their color is to ignore all those people of that color who have a rough time of it for other reasons.
Divide and conquer, remove the tents we have in our party, and alienate those less privileged because we think they have it better over their skin color.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:30 PM - Edit history (2)
All white people have privilege. A white poor person has privileges a black poor person doesn't have. A disabled white person has privilege a disabled black person doesn't have. Etc. It isn't about whether you personally are better or worse off than some specific other person who is not white. It's about whether simply being white has some level of privilege associated with it. That doesn't mean that you or anyone else might in other areas NOT have privilege, just that white people have this specific kind of privilege.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)And to make matters worse it pits the races against each other while at the same time, obscuring the real problem- the divide between the powerful and the powerless- the widening gap between rich and poor.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Identifying privilege is the first step towards evaluating any corrections which may need to be applied from a public policy perspective. White privilege exists because of generations of discrimination towards blacks. Even if the discriminiation is stopped, it doesn't change the fact that those communities have been degraded by the effects of generational discrimination and there is little or no privilege they can or do receive which can offset this in the short term. The same can't be said for "male privilege". No woman has any more claim to generational gender discrimination than any man. Everyone has mothers and fathers. Not everyone is black. So those that try to conflate "male privilege" with white privilege either don't understand what that concept means, or they are being duplicitious. Idiocy also comes in when people attempt to assign guilt based on an allegation of privilege, which defeats the entire purpose of identifying privilege in the first place and only seeks to divide.
I've been around elites and been looked down upon by them. I've also been assaulted by black cops. My elementary school teacher, a white woman, inflicted upon her students the worst kind of psychological torture. Power hungry knows no race, color, gender or ethnicity.
Mdterp01
(144 posts)N/t
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Not being arrested for "driving while black" is not a privilege, it is being WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS. Being allowed to marry whoever you want is not a PRIVILEGE. It is being WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS. If a black person is able to live in a society where he can drive around without interference because of his skin colour then he is withint his rights and if a white person, living in that society, is also able to drive around without interfereence because of his skin colour then he is also within his rights.
It's meaningless nonsense to cast ordinary living as a "privilege". There is no reason to use the term other than to attempt induce emotional reactions in people. That's it, that's all it is. It's just weird, manipulative behaviour.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If one person is disadvantaged, it means someone else is advantaged, just as if someone can be called short, it's only because someone else is tall. You can't have one side of the coin without the other.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Ordinary living is not an "advantage".
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Ordinary living for you (and me) is better than ordinary living for a person of color in a number of ways. Their ordinary is worse than ours, at least as far as race goes. Any person can be privileged in one way (race) but not in another (wealth, etc.); or not privileged in one way (race) but privileged in another (again, maybe wealth.) It's complicated but it's just an attempt to acknowledge that not everyone has the same circumstances we have, and that where one person has it harder, another person has it easier.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)And, if it was, there would be no necessity to use such a term if the disenfranchisement of black people, women, gay people, disabled people or any recasting the use of the word "privilege" in the context of this thread as "differently ordinary" is just grotestque, slithery twisting.
It is not an attempt to acknowledge that not everyone has the same circumstances "we" have (dunno who this "we" is, paleface). The word used in that case is "DISENFRANCHISED". The reason the word "privilege" is used is to perpetuate a nebulous, ill-defined, meaningless and slightly slithery sense of ordinary people being somehow overvalued. It stems from a desire not to to correct unfairness but to perpetuate a nebulous sense of unfairness rooted in the emotional structure of "black people feel bad, therefore white people must feel bad too" which is, in terms of political analysis, about as sensible as saying that the brother of a kid who has been raped by his dad that has managed to avoid being raped is privileged. The purpose of the term is not to correct injustice but to perpetuate emotional disturbance. It does not REVEAL. It OCCLUDES.
The word PRIVILEGE has a very specific meaning. It carries the inescapable overtone of "GREATER THAN ORDINARY".
See that yin/yang thing you said? It was a neat, slithery way of avoiding the overtone of "GREATER THAN ORDINARY" that can't be got away from using in the term "privilege". It was an attempt to cast "privilege" as "more ordinary than". That is not the meaing of the term. The meaning of the term "privilege" is "more than ordinary".
This idea that because someone else has gone down, someone else must have gone UP? That's the bit that's wrong.
Incidentally, why do you think ordinary living is better for me than for a person of colour? What do you know about me?
Wouldn't it be great if I could marry who I want to marry, like some imaginary black guy? That would be wonderful. Is he the beneficiary of "straight male privilege"? No. He is the beneficiary of RIGHTS.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)just that in comparison someone else IS up.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It is not a "privilege" to be able to have an ordinary life without interference from screwy legislature. That's a RIGHT. White people have no particular privileges, they have ordinary living.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)There is "privilege". There is no "advantage". Being white has no level of "privilege" associated with it.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)makes you less wrong? I know people don't like to acknowledge it, but it's there.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)+trillions
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
madinmaryland
(65,672 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)in general, by statistics, by many anecdotes...
yes, if you're homeless or disabled, white or black, it sucks, all the way around, nobody denies this.
but even if you can't imagine that it could be harder to escape a dire predicament because of one's race --if one is white, there are fewer barriers from society to escaping.
but why should this surprise you?
White Male Privilege was in the constitution for a century, was the law in much of the country for between 1 100 and 200 years...
Did you think that as White Male Privilege was taken out of the constitution and out of the law, that it was just magically gone forever at that moment?
Are you so naive that you think that in the Jim Crow south, where laws enforced White Privilege, do you think that 50 years later --that it's gone?
Are you serious?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts) 
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)A gay, handicapped, poor man has additional hurdles if he is also black.
It's acknowledging that there is still a deep amount of prejudice in this country. It might be more hidden then it once was, but it is still there.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
He will simply never be able to comprehend the horror of being Halle Berry.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)50k car will be pulled over, searched, and detained.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)but a guy who looked like that would get pulled over every third block around here.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in terms of avoiding getting a ticket.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)all white. surprisingly, they get out of as many tickets as i do. that would be the privilege of white.
also the attractive women have an added bonus with our law. rape.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014356684
not forced sex as the article says. rape. arent we just so privileged? talk to your daughter about that one, also.
theKed
(1,235 posts)as everybody knows, men don't get raped. Oh wait. Yes, they do. Rates of reporting are much lower than women, incidentally. Cultural perceptions and pressures about it being emasculating (homophobia, too). Isn't privilege grand?
I'm not diminishing female rape at all - simply a reality check.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the majority of rape in male category is in prison and as child or some other male institution. male is 1 in 71. women is 1 in 4-6. unreported rape per fbi is 30-70%. interpretation, they are clueless.
police using power to rape females, which is what we are discussing, is significantly, the vast majority, rape of women. reality check.
and purposely and deliberately ignoring the very real point i make, as other men did with the initial post, to deny white male privilege, that most everyone recognizes and are aware of.
theKed
(1,235 posts)Just for clarity, though, what is the threshold for rape to be bad...10%, 15%? I just want to know when I'm allowed to be outraged. Do you want to go tell that navt man - the one who poured his heart out to DU - that is actually wasn't a big deal, or should I?
Your post previously introduced rape into the discussion, implying (either intentionally or not ... i hope the latter) it to be the exclusive domain of women. It's not. And it is harder for men to report it. Aknowledging male rape does not diminish female rape. For realsies. That is the fucking reality check.
Rape is awful, horrific, and terrible to anyone[/] victimized by it. Male or female.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i consistently talk about the issue of rape and when applicable i always include children and men.... depending on what i am referencing. that would be the reality check you love so, but ignore.
i stand up for our males with rape. in all ways. i have yet to see you seriously discuss the issue. but, when it is to use as a means to dismiss misogyny.
theKed
(1,235 posts)Carry on with your outrage then, reality be damned.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not work for me.
most people recognize privilege. and one has to wonder about the person that works so very hard denying the existence of privilege.
i am thinking the reality be damn, is you motto
theKed
(1,235 posts)Not me. I'm denying that females are the only ones to get raped, despite your implication otherwise. That was the length and breadth of my statement. One has to wonder about one who tries so hard to avoid confronting that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)really... let it go. derailing fails.
theKed
(1,235 posts)It actually cannot possibly be bullshit, because that is exactly what I said.
As you were!
Response to theKed (Reply #166)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)statistics on police officers raping men. Are there some statistics I could look at in regards to that specifically? Rape is hideous no matter who the victim is, be it woman, child, or man.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Okay. I was guilty once, like Zora Neale Huston pretending ignorance of stoplights because she was African American, of exploiting the dumb blonde stereotype to get out of a speeding ticket.
However, there's a practice of cops pulling over young attractive females for supposed infractions just to get to bully a woman around for a while.
I never heard of the odious term until I was much older, but it finally explained to me why I was pulled for outrageous things in my teens and 20s (which mysteriously ended in my 30s forward). I particularly loved one male cop's excuse of my not "having a Town of Carrboro sticker" on my front right windshield, which turns out to have not been on the books.
But I probably wasn't at risk of being shot, like a black male, so relatively speaking non-violent sexual harrassment is the preferable problem to have.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and I know you know that too.
The white guys who make the rules for banking, home ownership, for who gets promoted and who does not and for every friggen rule and law that exists were are still are to a large extent, made by white privileged guys.
Pasting that picture of Joe Schmoo who happens to be white and a man has got absolutely Nothing to do with the power structure that has existed for eons that rule all our asses from birth to death.
If you don't get this, then there is no hope.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)who is this guy? Have his ancestors been making the rules for the rest of us for centuries?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But then, you ducked.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)The usage is so common in academia it's not even funny. I was shocked silly the first time someone flounced off here that they felt affronted and oppressed by being called white. LOL.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Rather closer to the default than not when it comes to people who aren't already well aware of the concept.
If you bring it up in any big, mixed group of people - especially if it's not something like an academic background, and even then only in certain subfields - you're going to see a lot of defensive, outraged reactions about "reverse bigotry" or "why's it good when they criticise me and not the other way around" and etc etc etc.
A lot of the reactions in this thread alone are completely idiotic, yes, but they're sadly way more common than they should be. That said, it's at least starting to start to sink in all over the place, so I do expect things will improve in coming years.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is unrealistic and more right-wing. The idea of privilege is just a more expanded way of discussing why life can be more of a struggle depending on what existence you've been dealt in life.
You're right though, I've rarely had the discussion in large mixed groups of people. I have a Humanities/Art background and we were required to take classes on social justice. I guess I just took that for granted, since it ended up seeming mostly like a common sense concept.
I hope things improve too, at least we've got many people pointed in one correct direction with the 99% vs. 1%.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
bench scientist
(1,107 posts)it's so knee jerk too, makes my head spin
Like you I took a social justice class and realize many don't , and have never considered these concepts.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)the definition of white privilege (and white male privilege as well) would be practically unknown, at least among the white population. Luckily, I bucked the local norms early and was friends with other races. So, I had heard of it before. If I had done what the majority in this area do (segregate themselves by choice), I would not even know what the phrase means. I understand a concept, and "get" it, while many white people in my area have never even heard of it. That fact is why we still have not moved forward toward fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that the privileged white male has been very, very good for this society. That thru that privilege our human society have great things upon which our easy lives' rest. Our unions and our work ethic have resulted in all of us living like only the few kings and queens did 100 years ago.
I am a wm and I'm proud and privileged.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Are you saying that only privileged white males could have effected these beneficial changes for society?
If so, enjoy your stay.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But it has been through the blood and sweat of many men, backed by good women, who have built this country. As for other minorities, they have played a great part, but wm are the majority and they have done a lot of good things. Is that wrong to recognize that?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and they did plenty of bad things as well. And they weren't alone, with or without the backing of good women.
And maybe, others could have done better. We'll never know, now, absent access to alternate universes.
For myself, I think it is inappropriate to rest on other peoples' laurels. My opinion.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Since our society is making progress and slowly dropping the wall of privilege, or glass ceiling, the society as a whole will improve. Be better.
But it is what it is and we can thank the wm, as a whole, for producing the easy life we now enjoy. The US and Europe have it very, very good historically, and imo, it has to do with the affirmative action the wm embraced and made good with.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The white males in power now are the biggest impediment to progress. In fact, the white males in the Republican party are attempting to roll the clock back to the Gilded Age. Too many white males in the leadership of the Democratic party are busy maintaining the status quo. We wouldn't be making progress if it weren't for the pressure of the non-white, non-male population. That's not unusual--generally the people lead the politicians, who won't follow until it is safe.
We might have it very good, historically speaking, but we could have had it better. Without the opposition of (mostly) Southern white males, backed by their women, we could have had universal health care decades ago--Truman pushed for it but too many white males didn't want to share hospitals with black people.
It's disingenuous to credit white males with all the good things in this culture.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)"......credit white males with all the good things in this culture."
You have that wrong. You might want to think a little clearer when you ascribe words to me, eh?
Nowhere else in the world lives as well as we do, as a whole. Why is that? That is my point. Good, bad, or ugly, it is true.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)But to answer your question as to why we live better than anyone else in the world, and before crediting white males, or the western tradition in general, I recommend some reading: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Might be a eye opener.
yardwork
(68,985 posts)And the countries where brown people are in charge aren't great? That's what you're saying. I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying here.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why would you say that is what I am saying?
You do not understand.
yardwork
(68,985 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I'm done here. See you in meta? Seriously.
yardwork
(68,985 posts)Be my guest.
I asked you if I understood you correctly. You said that I was wrong. I asked you to spell it out for me and you got huffy.
billh58
(6,655 posts)Yeah, that slavery thing worked out well for privileged white males didn't it? Or, how about that separate-but-equal form of apartheid during the privileged white male segregation period this nation went through? Or maybe that equal-pay-for-equal-work program that privileged white males fought tooth and nail?
Yep, "Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that the privileged white male has been very, very good for society," is certainly one way of putting it -- from a right-wing, neoconservative, good ole boy point-of-view.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
edited to fix code for bolding BAD, never proofread til now. <ducks>
Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that the privileged white male has been very, very BAD for society,
Your move.
Lex
(34,108 posts)I think you accidentally the privileged white male, like this one:
raccoon
(32,221 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)There is no PRIVILEGE in having basic rights. Rights are not a "PRIVILEGE".
It is not an ADVANTAGE to live in the absence of oppression.
The only reason to describe it as "PRIVILEGE" is a clumsy attempt to wrangle meaningless emotional reactions out of people that are inappropriate and serve no useful purpose.
billh58
(6,655 posts)owning another human being? Or maybe, the "right" to deny women the vote? Or how about a white male's "right" to tell women where, how, and under what conditions they can have an abortion? How about giving an entire race of Americans the "right" to separate-but-equal apartheid? Tell me again about how "rights" are not a privilege?
Yes Virginia, there IS white male privilege. But don't worry your little head about it, because no one is asking you to take responsibility for it. The remainder of society, however, will at least acknowledge that it did, and to a certain extent still does, exist and try and learn how to even out the opportunities for everyone in this country.
When was the last time someone was pulled over for "driving while male and white?"
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)Um, what. Having a working leg is an advantage over having a broken leg, right?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)
Squinch
(58,414 posts)
GObamaGO
(665 posts)You mean to have the arrogance to assert that a more egalitarian society would not have made those advances (and likely more than what a White Male Privileged society has done)?
I call bullshit.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Can you name a more egalitarian society that we can compare ours to?
I can't. It is what it is. I understand some have a problem with that.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I am also a beneficiary of "Mom is sitting here and teaching me math and English at 2 grade levels ahead of my class" privilege. And "show up for work on time every day and do a great job so they will want to advance me" privilege. And a bunch of other ones as well.
Just don't ask me to sabotage my life and make it harder in a misguided attempt at equality. I am in the "lift others up" camp, not the "tear them down" one.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I always hoped to be more understanding and considerate of the plight of others. I have acknowledged my WM privilege, and try to make decisions in my job and personal dealings to treat others with fairness. Beyond that, yes, I am clueless about what is expected of me. So, since I am incapable of "getting it", it is apparently a waste of time and energy to try.
In any event, I feel good about myself and my relationship to the world at large, so I am going to keep being me.
Me too.
Having said that, we do recognize our faults as manly men. But no use getting down on ourselves... here is a bit of advice I just saw on a sig line:
"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes"~William Gibson
theKed
(1,235 posts)is spot on.
As far as I am concerned there will always be privileged and unprivileged people (white, black, brown, men, women, rich, poor, whoever) Our goal should not be to tear down them to join the bottom, but rather bring the bottom up to level the field.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with you to me...
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)White privilege has little to do with it, when you suddenly have fewer opportunities in life.
Chew on that for a minute.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)This does not mean that white male privilege has not/does not happen and that white males are not profiting from it. Just that, probably, some white males would prefer that assumptions NOT be made about them in order to justify the fact that assumptions should NOT be made about people of other colors and genders.
Perhaps an approach to this problem should be predicated on all individuals respecting one another and an important part of that respect is to also be honest about one's self. One way to get at that honesty would be to model it; begin with questions directed to one's self and questions directed to other individuals, so that individual white males can account FOR THEMSELVES the different ways in which they personally have or have not benefited from white male privilege.
Believe it or not, the privileges of white masculinity, though they may have worked in certain financial and material ways, have not over-all worked to the more wholistic benefit of a lot of white males. And in some cases, whatever those privileges were, they were negotiated away or destroyed by other things that happened in INDIVIDUAL men's lives, so though they may recognize the truth of their privilege in some limited way, what matters most is how their own lives have worked out and whether they actually are authentically happy or not, which many many many of them are NOT.
Even when someone is right about you, how do you feel when another person, who may be more or less a total stranger, and "different" to boot, TELLS you who you are? Does that work for you?
No matter how right you are, you can't demand what you don't honestly give to others.
Whether you think they need that from you or not is beside the point, unless and until they actually DO demonstrate that whatever they need to recognize the truth IS beside the point, at which point, one then has grounds to consider disregarding what they pretend to need in order to talk about white male privilege and, then, just go ahead and say what you think you need to say about white male privilege.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)1. It is difficult to drive while white in the wrong neighborhood. I suppose it can be done, pretty sure it is rare though.
2. While shopping white males are rarely the target of the people in the security office.
3. White males can go about their business when ever and where ever they want. No one is going to tell them they shouldn't go out at night because bad things happen to white males when they go out after dark.
4. White males can conceal and carry without a lot of fuss by the general public. Try being black and doing that in an urban area. Michael Moore had to educate the police in some city forget which one on what a gun is and isn't. Apparently some black man was shot because he was holding a dangerous spatula.
5. White males in general tend to do less housework. It was true in my family and in every family I knew growing up. It is apparent in most tv shows and tv ads that this is acceptable behavior.
6. White males can afford to ignore draconian laws that are being passed in regards to abortion in many states.
7. When a white male goes to a job interview there is very little possibility that the person doing the interview will think about maternity leave being a liability.
8. Being a white male means never having to explain you didn't use your wiles to get to your position in life or being called a gold digger if you date outside your income level. It can happen, it's just not the go to response that it is when women get to a certain level.
9. It means you don't have to acknowledge all the assistance you get to get where you are going, ie parental sacrifice, good schools if you are lucky enough to be in a good district, your spouse taking care of everything else while you concentrate on your career, etc...
10. In many cases it just means being taken more seriously.
billh58
(6,655 posts)a few posts up RobertEarl says that privileged white males are "backed by good women." Isn't that just as good being equal?
(if necessary)
Squinch
(58,414 posts)billh58
(6,655 posts)but I don't believe that I wrote post #26...
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)back to his own damn home without getting accosted and shot by some racist, overzealous shaved ape with a hero complex.
And if he did have the misfortune of that happening to him there probably wouldn't be people on the internet and in the media combing through his school records in an attempt to paint him as a "thug".
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Skittles
(169,690 posts)otherwise that bastard would have walked
patrice
(47,992 posts)be the majority.
That's over.
Enough money CAN buy, if not systemic lack of discrimination, at least on a case by case situational lack of discrimination.
Squinch
(58,414 posts)....oh... wait...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)One day we might even be able to elect a black man from a humble family background as President of the United States.
Naaaah, who am I kidding.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Seriously, what changed in our culture just based on Obama being president?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)JI7
(93,251 posts)look at how great Obama had to be to get there.
and then look at people like Bush, Quayle, Reagan etc .
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And he is not exactly "great".
JI7
(93,251 posts)there like Obama or even Thurgood Marshall who they would oppose today. you know the real reason Thomas is there and it's not because they think he is qualified.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is it in your opinion possible to be racist against a white person? Or sexist against a male?
maindawg
(1,151 posts)I am a white guy. But what makes me a minority is my particular disease. The fact that I dont look like the white people on television. Can you imagine how difficult my life has been, as an un attractive white man. A plain standard issue white man. Not a great scholar , nor great athlete. Not remarkable in nearly any way.[other than being a smart ass] I am ordinary. My disability is my utter lack of cogent pertictobility. But dont pity me, pity my father.
brewens
(15,359 posts)get all the breaks all the time, they're being discriminated against. Like Christians when you try and prevent them from forcing their superstition on others, they feel it's persecution.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Just throwing out the claim that the source of a specific problem is due to "white male privilege" without further explanation seems to be a step down that path.
mike dub
(541 posts)White male privilege *needs to be acknowledged.
In fact, white male privilege run-amok was one of my 1 million reasons for not voting for Mitt Rmoney. The supposition that he should just be Given the title of president was nauseating.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)
krhines
(115 posts)"If you're white and you don't admit its an advantage, then you're an asshole!"
I'm on phone so I don't know if this will show up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he loved it. after, he says, ck is so funny. i say ya, some of his stuff, but can be a real sexist pig. hey wait... he is a white male.
we laughed.
thanks.
ck said it well.
Mdterp01
(144 posts)Reminds me of when Chris Rock in his commentary talked about how good it is to be white. He said in one of his comedy specials "There's a white one legged bus boy who wouldn't trade places with my Black ass....AND IM RICH!!!!!!"
krhines
(115 posts)And it is really funny. I have all of Chris Rocks stand ups. He is one of my favorite comedians. Louis CK has a lot of really funny and insightful stuff. If you have youtube some of it (I recommend one titled "being broke"
Number23
(24,544 posts)"We're gonna pay for this. We're not gonna fall from number one to number two. And we totally deserve it. But for now... WHEEEE!!"
LOVE IT.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)who enjoyed privilege and I've known my share of white males that most certainly did not. The "White Men" meme, without any qualifiers such as SOME White Men, is a broad brush which is a necessary component to bigotry. I agree with your premise, I just don't agree with your broad-brush terminology.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)Didn't work out well.
The point that I tried to make is that all white males are not equally privileged.
The point that was (then) difficult for me to realize was that, even so, a white male of a given social position is better off than a non-white male in a nominally equivalent social position.
My life, for example, hasn't been especially hard, but it hasn't been especially easy, either. Still, it's been a lot easier than it would have been if I were part of another demographic.
That's the privilege. It's not a matter of being privileged a purely economic or material sense; it's the privilege of automatically enjoying benefits for no reason beyond belonging to a certain pigment- and gender-based club.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)WMP doesn't mean you are automatically 'privileged'.
It means that you, compared with someone NOT white/male in the same position is generally better off than if you had not been white/male. If you had abusive parents, couldn't attend college, worked menial jobs, are poor, been cheated on by your spouse, and generally had a difficult life, WMP means someone non-white who had been through the exact same things would likely have had it worse. I still don't get how white males can even say it doesn't benefit them. I don't get why they get defensive other than perhaps they think subconsciously that if WMP is real, and becomes recognized and is lessened or done away with, then maybe they are scared their lives will get worse, so they deny WMP even exists as a coping mechanism for their fear.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)In my case, at least, it would have been more effective to have a discussion about the basic nature of WPM, rather than facing a checklist of specific benefits afforded by the WPM. That is, until I understood the fact of WMP, I was inclined to debate the individual entries on the list, rather than address the underlying issue. This led to defensiveness on both sides of the discussion, and ultimately nothing was gained.
The checklist is still useful in illustrating ways in which WPM is a specific benefit to the individual, but I'm not sure that it's the most effective way to start the conversation.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)So, it doesn't matter that the magnitude of the effect of wealth inequality is (in fact, let's not even discuss it!)--poor whites still have it better than poor blacks.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)Can you clarify your point?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I was trying to agree with you and amplify your point:
In my opinion, there is a systematic attempt to downplay class-based privilege in this country. And, in fact, class/wealth based privilege is the overriding feature of our society that decides everything from access to housing, healthcare, education, and opportunities in life.
Those who possess this privilege systematically attempt to downplay and instead offer the argument: "poor whites are better off than poor blacks." But this very argument ignores the fact that the rich of all colors are better off than the poor of all colors, and that, in fact, wealth, not race, is the number one factor that determines Americans' lives.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)Actually, I think that both points can be true simultaneously. I certainly accept that class disparity is a major oppressive force in our society, but that doesn't mean that WPM isn't also a fact.
Chris Rock made an excellent point in this regard, when he noted that he was (in a given year) one of the top-grossing African American performers in the US, and he lived in a posh residential area alongside white doctors and lawyers.
That is, a black man had to achieve preposterously vast wealth and success in order to be on the same footing as such ordinary white professionals as doctors and dentists. "Ordinary" is my term, and not Rock's.
At the end of it all, my sense is that someone from the upper class would happily shit on me as readily as he would on my Latino neighbor, but even at that upper class level, the fact of being white and male affords a greater level of privelege than other races/genders enjoy.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)That's so obviously wrong that it's hard for me to believe that he believes it.
That is, a black man had to achieve preposterously vast wealth and success in order to be on the same footing as such ordinary white professionals as doctors and dentists. "Ordinary" is my term, and not Rock's.
Chris Rock can afford to live anywhere in the world he wants. If he lives with "ordinary white professionals" it's because he chose to do so. He could as easily live in Maui or Tokyo or Milan.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)The point isn't that he's wealthy enough to live wherever he wants; the point is that a white man can be a lot less wealthy and still afford to live wherever Chris Rock wants to live.
That's so obviously wrong that it's hard for me to believe that he believes it.
The actual issue isn't whether you or I would trade places with a fabulously wealthy black man; it's whether you or I would find our situations improved if we traded places with a non-white person at our same socio-economic level.
I rather suspect that we would not. That's white male privilege.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"white male privilege"? I don't think that case has been made. The much better case is that Chris Rock doesn't represent the African American experience--he's a rich entertainer and sees the world through that lens.
Right. But we have to totally ignore the effect on class and wealth on our lives for the point to make sense. Chris Rock is fabulously wealthy, and that allows him to do things that being a poor white man would never do. So, we're back at the same point--YES, "white privilege" exists in this sense, but also YES wealth privilege also exists.
My argument is that the magnitude of wealth privilege grossly outstrips the magnitude of white privilege. But even if you don't accept that premise, and will only agree they are only both very significant factors, it seems clear that the former is rarely (if ever) discussed.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)That's fine, but I suggest that you start another thread to discuss the privilege of class and wealth. I have the sense that you and I are in near-total agreement on most elements of that discussion.
Chris Rock being able to live where he wants is obviously not an example of white male privilege, nor did I assert it as such. Instead, in order for Chris Rock to attain that level of privilege, he had to achieve much greater success than a white man would need to achieve in order to attain that same level of privlege. That's the WPM.
Do you also see that you're comparing the privilege enjoyed by one of the richest black men in the country with the privilege afforded to an anonymous poor white man? Do you see that it's ludicrous even to suggest such a comparison? It's like asking "Who would win an arm-wrestling match, the strongest man in the world or a bed-ridden invalid?" The comparison is formulated in a way that deliberately guarantees the outcome.
Let me say for the record that I share your concerns about the disparity and privilege of wealth and class, and I agree that these are worthy of extensive discussion. I simply don't see that it needs to be a "one or the other" proposition as you suggest.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Why you need to resort to insults, I can't say.
But this seems to me to be yet another example of a discussion of class being angrily denounced.
I don't think we disagree on this matter. I think the disagreement is to the magnitude of the effect of the privilege of wealth on people's lives. The Chris Rock quotes are particularly galling, as they seemingly (intentionally?) ignore the class/wealth based privilege he enjoys.
Do you also see that you're comparing the privilege enjoyed by one of the richest black men in the country with the privilege afforded to an anonymous poor white man? Do you see that it's ludicrous even to suggest such a comparison? It's like asking "Who would win an arm-wrestling match, the strongest man in the world or a bed-ridden invalid?" The comparison is formulated in a way that deliberately guarantees the outcome.
This is the meat of the matter. I specifically stated that I don't believe this to be true, nor do I believe that Chris Rock believes this. I don't believe that an "anonymous poor white man" has anything CLOSE to the privilege enjoyed by Chris Rock--the very comparison is specious!
I specifically said something different from this. "One or the other" certainly isn't a quote from my posts, nor even a paraphrase. At any rate, we're at the point of these exchanges where one poster simply won't accept that the other poster has a different p.o.v., and starts sniping instead of discussing. Best to end it here.
Orrex
(66,694 posts)As far as interpreting your argument as a "one or the other" proposition, I drew that conclusion based on your repeated citing of class privilege as a greater societal factor, to the point that you seemed to want to shut down the discussion of WPM altogether. From your tone I inferred that class privilege seemed the more important discussion to have. If that was not your intent, then perhaps I misunderstood--that was, after all, the subject line of my first reply to you.
You wrote:
You also wrote:
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)Class privilege is white male privilege.
The fact a small percentage of minorities are on the high side of class prilege does not negate that .
Romulox
(25,960 posts)quite purposeful.
"Negate" is your word. You, like many, get angry at the mere mention of class privilege. Ask yourself why.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And, on a personal level, it's important to recognize you probably don't. That is what white privilege is, the ability to not have your race mediate every single interaction you have with other people. So, yes, maybe it's not the most ideal name for it, but since only white people have it I still think it's pretty apt.
I see a lot of "well how can I not be racist then?" screeds. Your goal in life shouldn't be to "not be racist". Racism isn't about you, it's not a moral flaw. It's a role you play in a system, a system we've all built over centuries without any one person meaning to. If you stop making "not being a racist" such a core part of your self-definition, it becomes a lot easier to actually not be one.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)not the color of their skin. Not an original approach, I know, but a good one.
JI7
(93,251 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)http://manifestfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-myth-of-colorblindness/
MLK Jr. said that he hoped that one day we would be able to judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. He did not say it was possible to do that at that time, and it isn't reasonable to extrapolate that we should be able to now, without aiding racism. Racism exists and ignoring it is not ending racism, it is abetting it.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...to "white male privilege", being a Fox News-listening, Tea Party-belonging, born-again Christian.
While I certainly acknowledge the existence of WMP, I sometimes think that some problems and issues are too quickly diagnosed as being caused by or symptomatic of WMP when there may well be other things going on, when a situation might be different or more complex than that.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If I remember correctly, the arguments were against one specific accusation of WMP, and not WMP in general.
I think that thread would have benefited greatly from the OP defining WMP and then explaining how his or her observations fit within gun sales.
Oh, and this will probably be locked since it is a meta thread.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Outside of Academia this is not a conversation normally held. It should, it's real...but it's not.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)write the words "man up" again.
Deal?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And, since the other thread didn't quite get the responses you imagined it would, you decided to post this thread without even mentioning the first.
You posted an opinion and expected it to be accepted as fact. You got called on it. This thread seems mighty mopey to me.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)I read the thread you refer to and you've called it.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)pecwae
(8,021 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)pecwae
(8,021 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)538 blog backs up everything I said! guns are strongly an old white rural guy demographic. Just because you can post pictures of Danica Patrick and Juan Carlos Montoya doesn't mean that NASCAR isn't dominated by white guys.
fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)It helps that you’ve identified the data source you’re suing to draw your conclusions.
Let me preface this by saying I think it’s hard to identify a societal ill that doesn’t have at least part of its basis in WMP. It may be difficult for your average white guy to recognize or acknowledge WMP because many, if not most, are primarily passive beneficiaries of a system whose most tangible benefits are increasingly reserved for the financial elite and a handful of professions still steeped in good-ole boy networking. The passive benefits remain real, though. Our cultural imagery alone constantly reinforces the white male ego, presenting “whiteness” and “guyness” as the very definition of success. I do think white guys have a particular responsibility to recognize the influence of WMP and, at the very least, do what they can to not perpetuate the system.
That said, I’m skeptical of your claim that WMP and rural white guys are at the heart of gun problems in the US. One issue with the data you’re relying on is that it relies on self-reporting of gun ownership which does not necessarily present an accurate measure of actual gun ownership in this country. Another problem is that the numbers presented don’t jibe with data on gun violence. A 60% gun ownership is self-reported in rural environments, for example, but 60% of gun violence in the US occurs in urban and metropolitan settings. More white households self-report gun ownership, but the strongest demographic correlation with gun violence is with young African American males.
The numbers I’m looking at come from several sources, but these two links are reasonable summaries:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/#
About the only connection I can see between WMP and gun violence in the US is that a bunch of rich white guys have fucked up the economy and there is a really strong correlation between poverty and gun violence. That strikes me as a circuitous path if your endpoint is blaming rural white guys more than any other demographic.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)And, to be effective, laws need enforcement. Therefore, more law enforcement (aka police) out there trying to find out who has illegal weapons. More undercover investigations, traffic stops, patting people down, running wiretaps and surveillance, trying to find cooperative witnesses in order to build a case that leads to convictions.
But when you do that, people are upset about the "police state".
So how many laws and police and jail cells would be necessary to clean up the guns (legal AND the ones ALREADY illegal) in a place like Detroit?
MightyMopar
(735 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)When it comes to power in Washington, my first instinct is to follow the money.
http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2012/12/who-really-funds-nra-not-its-members.html
http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)sheesh
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Pretty damn silly.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I'd gladly be black and have perfect vision.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Besides God/nature gave you those physical handicaps not a racist society.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Being white doesn't protect you from going to prison either. It just tilts the odds a bit so you have a better chance of not getting caught, or of pleading your case down to a lesser offense.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)It's not a black or white thing, so to speak.
I stand by my statement that most people who are in prison are there because they committed crimes.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Especially in the deep South. Two men are arrested for possession of marijuana, one white and one black. Guess which one is going to get off with a $250 fine and unsupervised probation, and which one ends up spending a year in jail...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Men are incarcerated 11x more often than women. Blacks are incarcerated 6x more often than whites.
If I enjoy privilege because I'm 1/6th as likely as a black man to go to jail, then women are privileged because they are less than 1/10th as likely to go to jail as me.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They equate it with rich or well off.
Two men, one white and one black, with pretty equal lives in terms of family, income, housing etc, still live very different lives in America. They are treated differently in how they are treated in stores, restaurants, getting apartments, jobs and by the police and legal system.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) MightyMopar
(735 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts) MightyMopar
(735 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts) polly7
(20,582 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)He's backed into a corner and can't defend what he said.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I've been hearing this kind of thing for well over 40 years. It seems little has changed with regard you're argument and approach. That would behoove you to change your approach, unless you just want to make cheap shots and play for the bleachers.
Oh, and quit trying to pick a fight in an empty barroom. Slack has a lot more class than to deal with your crap.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I really do insist on an answer to this one.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)You can correctly say that about men but you can't morally or politically say that about race.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Men are inherently predisposed to crime" is a sexist argument in exactly the way that "blacks are inherently predisposed to crime" is a racist one.
If we're in prison because we're more criminal by nature, then what obvious explanation would you offer to the fact that men invented nearly everything of any importance?
MightyMopar
(735 posts)1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)No amount of semantic dancing is going to get you out of this.
The belief that one gender has traits which make them superior is sexism.
If "men in jail" is proof of their inherently criminal nature, what is "men as inventors" proof of?
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Why sexism can't exist against men and racism can't exist against whites (in our society)
Sexism and racism are institutionalized, systemic discrimination against groups of people. Discrimination against men and discrimination against whites can exist in individual spheres, but do not truly exist institutionally. That is why “misandry” doesn’t exist. It can effectively exist in the form of a woman who hates men simply for being men, but don’t call it misandry. Call it man-hating if you will. But as this article so brilliantly puts it,
“Misandry (a hatred of men) is absolutely a real thing in the same way that paper cuts are a real thing. But to balance a discussion of misogyny with a retort about misandry is to bring paper cuts into a discussion about gun control.”
Similarly, as another person put it,
“Being called whitey means your feelings are hurt for about five minutes and then forgetting about it. Because in the end, being Whitey has never ever systematically stopped you from anything, has never hindered your life simply because you were white in the same way being a person of color dictates how your life is different than a white person’s.”
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/sexism%20against%20men
SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)I got college professors on my side and you only have hard feelings. Karl Rove got beat up by girl when he was a kid and it ruined him for life, i hope something like that didn't happen to you.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)and you're responsible for it.
If that was your takeaway from college, you should demand your money back.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)How on Earth did you get the idea that I was making such a suggestion?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It took me a minute to figure out where that came from.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)slackmaster pointed out that most in prison committed a crime.
As it happens, most or many in prison are black.
You and I know that laws are not applied fairly.
The accusation, and it was just that, that slackmaster thinks that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crime is jackass crazy and fucked up.
I know you know that, and I appreciate that you looked up thread to find the basis.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I don't sit in front of a computer all the time.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)ETA I really can't understand how you would draw such a conclusion from what I wrote above, unless you are so predisposed to think that I am racist that you are unable to take my words at face value and have inserted your own twisted interpretation.
MightyMopar
(735 posts) slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...the same kind of crime is LESS LIKELY to be arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated than is a black person.
That's why there is such an imbalance.
If you want to call that WMP that's fine. To me it looks more like systematic oppression of black people.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)All those things you mentioned are rights, not privileges. Privilege is not the freedom from overt discrimination. Privilege refers more to disparate access. If one group has better access to education, community services, health care, voting rights, etc. That is privilege.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)All of the things he mentioned SHOULD be rights afforded to everyone, but they're not. Hence there should be no WMP but there is.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Not social privilege. And WMP is not one thing and shouldn't be presented as one thing.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)common form of discrimination--a form of discrimination which, not coincidentally, is almost never discussed here on DU. Most people actually support class based discrimination on some level or another.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)But people of the same class who are non-white have additional obstacles.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)(head-desk)
How many times does it have to be explained? Just because one person's treated rudely or unfairly for some stupid reason related to the CATEGORY they are in doesn't mean people who AREN'T in that category are somehow "overvalued".
The only reason to maintain this idiotic term "white male privelege" is to perpetuate a pointless
If one kid in a family gets to avoid being raped by his dad when another doesn't, the first kid isn't PRIVILEGED.
.... (head...desk...head...desk...head...desk...)
valerief
(53,235 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)How To Buy a Daughter
Choosing the sex of your baby has become a multimillion-dollar industry.
Megan Simpson always expected that she would be a mother to a daughter.
She had grown up in a family of four sisters. She liked sewing, baking, and doing hair and makeup. She hoped one day to share these interests with a little girl whom she could dress in pink.
Simpson, a labor and delivery nurse at a hospital north of Toronto, was surprised when her first child, born in 2002, was a boy. That’s okay, she thought. The next one will be a girl.
Except it wasn’t. Two years later, she gave birth to another boy.
Desperate for a baby girl, Simpson and her husband drove four hours to a fertility clinic in Michigan. Gender selection is illegal in Canada, which is why the couple turned to the United States. They paid $800 for a procedure that sorts sperm based on the assumption that sperm carrying a Y chromosome swim faster in a protein solution than sperm with an X chromosome do.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/09/sex_selection_in_babies_through_pgd_americans_are_paying_to_have_daughters_rather_than_sons_.html
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If parents thought that "buying a daughter" would be a life sentence to oppression, they wouldn't do it.
The obvious answer is they are not. They are giving their children the attributes which ensure the best possible opportunities. And being born male isn't one of those attributes.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)and they may not even realize how above grade their condo is, if they've never lived in a regular condo.
BTW, this doesn't make white males bad, or even responsible for their station in life. It is the way it is. Society and human nature, I guess, makes it that way.
As Cher said of Sonny once, long ago, about their divorce....He was a good master, but he was a master.
Mdterp01
(144 posts)Im a fair skinned Black/Latino male and can admit I have privilege over darker skinned Black and Latino males so why the hell can't some white men admit that they have privilege over everyone by being a white male. It's not bigoted. It's just how things are and you've really seen it come out in the age of Obama. But for those color blind social justice every day upstanding, law abiding white males what are they supposed to do about it? Can't keep punishing those who don't exploit it because of the sins of their forefathers. Even though it comes naturally, it's treated with a broad stroke disdain as if they are all out to oppress minorities. Not the case.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)As a white woman, I can fully admit the ways in which I have privilege because of my race. I hate it. I do what I can to combat racism, but that doesn't mean that I haven't had advantages being born white. I have never gotten the way some white guys just refuse to let themselves admit their privilege. Nobody is blaming individual men for it.
Mdterp01
(144 posts)that I was surprised Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primary in 2008. I thought we'd see a white woman President before any minority. It showed me that sexism goes far deeper than even what I believed. Washington is still a boys club and while I knew people would have issue accepting a female Commander in Chief, the fact that she lost to some up and coming guy with little experience revealed how deep gender still plays.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)And I probably shouldn't be, but I have been pretty shocked by just how blatant the racism has been, directed at President Obama. I knew people are pathetically racist in this country, but wow. I was hoping we didn't have quite THAT far to go.
Mdterp01
(144 posts)The election of Barack Obama, and particularly his re-election showed the white male privilege ideology at its best. The commentary that I saw coming almost exclusively from white men was appalling at how the shifting demographics in this country threatens their dominance. Playing devils advocate I can understand it a bit. When society and the set up of the world basically reinforces that you are smarter, more powerful, and dominant than anyone else then it makes sense that when you lose your grip a bit on it that it becomes panic mode. So I'm not surprised at how those white men who relish their status in society have reacted. They are truly shell shocked that Obama was re-elected and now have a sense that the grip on their dominance is not as tight.
uponit7771
(93,491 posts)
Flashmann
(2,140 posts)Yes.....Just as a few dozen IQ points also are......
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)So, you are surprised at the amount of white male DU'ers that feel that any acknowledgement of "white male privilege" is bigoted. One might ask you at this point how many white male DU'ers have expressed such a view? Two? Five? Ten? A thousand?
Also, how does "manning up" effect the ability of a man to acknowledge history? Will "manning up" assist me in other areas of accepting historical fact? Should I do some squats or lunges before cracking a history book? Maybe paint my face like warriors in Braveheart and give a primal scream before easing back in a chair and learning about history?
On a related note, I am curious at the level and frequency of your feeling "surprised" in daily life and do you "man up" in all of these instances?
Cheers!
MightyMopar
(735 posts)I hear well off white males blaming the victim all the time about "those blacks" etc. I'm just surprised so many Du'ers also exhibit such ignorance, but it is possible their not Democrats and just ALEC stooges trolling for God and guns.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)If you are "hearing" white males whining about affirmative action then I would suspect that these men are present in front of you and are part of your daily life. And, unless they are also DU'ers it would be a logical assumption that you do not, in fact, find a "surprising" number of white, male DU'ers expressing the opinion that anyone referring to "white, male privilege" is a bigot.
You write:
"I hear well off white males blaming the victim all the time about "those blacks" etc."
Well, it appears you interact with racists at times in your personal life, but your post specifically tags white, male DU'ers as being the culprits which I seriously doubt is true.
Cheers!
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Trayvon Martin was shot because he was a young black MAN.
There is no such thing as white male privilege. There is white privilege period.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)In fact, I am quite sure I did not.
Also, words mean things. You write:
"There is no such thing as white male privilege. There is white privilege period."
This is a nonsensical sentence.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Much like your example of ghosts, no proof is required. We all know that male privilege exists because Trayvon Wilson and Matthew Shepard, that's why!
im a Belieber
(6 posts)instead yet more victimhood, 'mkay?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we should look on this as an opportunity. Nothing wrong with giving up privilege and recognizing that our true allies are the global Rainbow, not the cranky rich white dudes on top.
Speak for yourself. You don't represent white guys any more than I do.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As such, we bear some responsibility for trying to change the dynamics within our gender/racial combination. We are able to speak to other white men in a way that people outside this group probably can't.
I'm not trying to shame you, or any other white guy that hasn't done anything consciously bad ourselves, but we need to be part of the solution, and the solution lies in changing the way white men, especially the majority of white men who aren't rich and never will be, see the world and engage with it.
Throd
(7,208 posts)
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Whether you agree that white males enjoy privilege or don't, that seems to be just about as far as it goes.
I've been rather curious myself as to the putative next step in the process.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is no more than being aware. acknowledging. leads to understanding.
it is not a tough one, hence the resistance absurd. not a lot is being asked of the white person (my case, white woman), or the white male.
simple acknowledgment, recognition is all it is about. with that comes change.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Well, I guess that's where I get turned around.
See, while some may see privilege, others may not, there is no next step. Apparently, some "???" step/occurrence/miracle occurs, and PROFIT! follows.
So it has been acknowledged. Very well. Tomorrow, can I expect another thread? See, because that's the rub right there. The resistance isn't to the acknowledgement.
See, I object to the word "privilege" for a bunch of reasons, but if I understand it to mean what I think it means, then we can at least agree that what you call "privilege" and I might choose other words for are the same. We are talking about the same thing, and I'll acknowledge that without hesitation.
It is the REPEATED asking for acknowledgement that is precisely irksome. How many of these threads do we truly require? What is their purpose except to periodically remind certain people of their place? Threads that talk to people are fine, but these are clearly talking to some people and AT others.
This is why I say this never goes anywhere. In each of these threads there is a subtext that is not being acknowledged.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)at all more important than your peers of color or women, even though you might well be accustomed to dominating the conversation when around women or people of color. if you notice you are more frequently given more benefit of the doubt than others, try being supportive of your peers and seeing if they deserve credit too. Don't always assume you are supposed to take the lead.
It's crazy in the workplace, after working for people for 7 years, my male bosses would show more respect to (and compensate) a man with NO work experience but lots of confidence and charisma. And the young man would never notice or acknowledge he hadn't yet earned a shred of their respect. That's what people mean by male white privilege. When you have it, you don't even notice it.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)It isn't that a person is shown respect per se, rather they are being shown less or more respect than another person? Are people who, as a fundamental part of their character, are likely to try to lead rather than follow through this relative assessment to suppress that part of their character in the interest of some other end?
I guess what you're presenting here is respect difference on an individual level, which is not the same as fairness on a group level. Moreover, you seem to be suggesting that when a difference exists on an individual level that it exposes a difference on a group level, which doesn't logically follow.
Just out of curiosity, this person who had no work experience but logs of confidence and charisma, what was he interviewing for and are the twin characteristics of confidence and charisma particularly valuable in that job? If so, the hire was a good move. If not, they are still handy characteristics to have during the interview process. I don't see that as privilege per se, but rather having skill in the areas that are particularly valuable for getting employment. That's not privilege, that's skill, whether learned or innate, and he is using it to his advantage quite on purpose. You appear to be confusing an individual skill advantage with a gender or color privilege from what you've related here. Now, I grant you that you've given me a precis of this particular event or events rather than further detail which may flesh out the situation better. So is there more to this which might clarify the situation?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the job was complicated, and he was totally lost calling me for advice (that he should have listened to when I wa training him- but ooops- too confident) for many weeks and got fired in six months after fucking up - from inexperience) and losing the company a lot of money. No skill advantage. Sorry. The whole thing was pretty transparent. The bosses liked him in their jovial little boys "club", and they got the fuck up they deserved for making such foolish choices.
I gave you good advice based on my many years working, and dozens of conversations with other women about PATTERNS of behavior we have observed firsthand.. You did not comment on the advice I gave at all- even though you claimed to be interested in it. Okay then, I't appears you were feigning interest from the responses you've given.
If you care to follow up and learn more, it's out there. But I get the distinct impression that you don't want to learn anything, and are just here to blow some hot air. Not terribly interested in that.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)I don't know you, you don't know me. Difference between us is that I acknowledge that I don't know you. This is where my questions come from, an HONEST desire to get the facts straight and to trust, but also to verify. You, on the other hand, seem to think you know where my head's at, and as a result, you always get me wrong.
Are you saying he should have never gotten the job in the first place? If so, I'm saying that it is the nature of the interview process to reward those who approach it with confidence and charisma. These are individual traits, not male traits, not white traits. And thus, not the privilege of which this thread seems to be about. Getting the job and doing the job are two different things and they require skills that don't necessarily dovetail. The former requires confidence and charisma, the latter requires whatever the job requires. Many people have bullshitted their way through an interview into a position, but it really has nothing to do with "privilege", it has to do with skill at bullshitting... or should I say, "charisma and confidence".
Just FYI, I never asked for your advice. I don't want to learn opinion in the guise of truth, I'll just have to unlearn it later and I'd love to save myself the trouble.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you asked for steps... TWICE.
But your responses completely betray your intentions. LOL. Total bullshit.
And you seem to know NOTHING about hiring at other than entry level. So, that puts the rest of your posts into context for me. Just like the moron who almost ruined the business I worked for, you don;t know when you are in waaay over your head. LOL.
Goodbye!
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)...are essentially more of the same. "Acknowledgement". "Awareness". Which to me sounds like a lot of self-flagellation and hand-wringing, accomplishing nothing of any consequence whatsoever.
Maybe you should be mad at the people who hired the yutz for being an idiot (because he/she/they is/are), but it says nothing about any grander idea. Way over my head. Pfft. Yeah, sure. Why not? You can't see the difference between idiots hiring idiots and genuine so-called "privilege", but I'm the stunted intellect around here. Mmmmmmmmmkaaayyyyy...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you'd be shocked at how many "enlightened men" talk over and past their female colleauges blissfully unaware that they never ever consider their workplace skills or contributions. you ignore that this is a pattern repeated from office to office, meeting to meeting by mod women in the workplace. it is one story out of millions where idiots hire idiots. where a female or ethnic name gets your resume filed in the trash before it's even read.
first you attack the details, when that fails, you attack the premise. bullshit.
Be honest with yourself, you came to this thread to get your kicks from being a dismissive little git. It's boring, common and totally transparent. Why you waste your own and other people time faking some concern is beyond me. Go have fun playing with people who are foolish enough to think you are, even for a moment, being genuine with your questions. And when you run out of dumbass retorts be sure to visit an MRA website for more silly talking points.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)You are right. There IS a difference between acknowledgement and doing something about it. But what you've suggested here, and what all these threads we see from time to time suggest, is that they are the same, not by direct admission but through the absence of what specifically can be done. No next step.
Perhaps its just my experience as to my workplace, the "talking over and past" does not happen. The problem with your conjectures are that I have one counterexample. I am sure that there are more. To the point, your proof of the widespread nature of this "phenomenon" is largely anecdotal. Maybe you work in an industry rife with this and others do not? All companies I am aware of are quite serious about non-discrimination, either in hiring or promotion in the workplace, and those who do the interviewing are equally assiduous in upholding this principle.
I attack the details because they are anecdotal, personal to you. Your workplace, or your industry in general, could just as easily be the norm as the statistical outlier, but you've stated emphatically that this is indeed the norm. And if the details supporting the premises are in question, then the premises are in question. There are other, less conspiratorial explanations for the things you see, but you claim time and time again that this employment situation of yours is precisely institutionalized racism and sexism.
I came to this thread because I disagree, not with its premise, but with its implied purpose. Privilege, as used in this context, is a dog whistle. The OP, lacking anything further of substance with regards to its declared purpose, is meant to stir shit.
Oh, yes of course, the "MRA" trope... what a common refrain to disagreement for some. Nonsense, but if it gets you through your day...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Your short life, reduced earnings, unfair treatment in court, and disproportionate crime victimization is evidence of your privilege, somehow.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)all the way to understanding. and that accomplishes wonderful shit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)your peers of color or women, even though the boss might seem to prefer you to allow (or even prefer) you to dominate the conversation. if you notice you are more frequently given more benefit of the doubt than others, try being supportive and listening better. It's crazy in thee workplace, after working for people for 7 years, they'd show more respect to a man with NO work experience but lots of confidence and charisma. And the young man would never notice or acknowledge he hadn't earned a shred of their respect. He would;t notice he had no clue how to get the job done, either. Happens all the time.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts) bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Guys are usually clueless that they talk all over us, interrupt, jump in with grand solutions ignoring coworkers with more experience (and pigment or curves) who know better. It's insane, but it happens ALL the time.
I am finally at a business where there are a much bigger percentage of female managers, and you still see guys do it. But it's not as bad when management is entirely male.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I've been in meetings, as a subject matter expert, and after offering my assessment, an executive will turn and ask a man who knows nothing about the topic to "confirm what I said". One executive in particular. It's infuriating.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and I think those who have an issue with this acknowledgemnt that there is while male priviledge, are in deep denial.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)thing.
That and/or they are bitter if they don't think or see that their lives have personally benefited from it.
I'm a white female. I see the white privilege I benefit from daily. I try not to take advantage of it and I try to consider it when dealing or speaking with others.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Maybe they should all go home.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts) 
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)Why? Because there is no privilege for males, females. Their is no privilege for any race. We are all the same frogs, in the same pot of water and the temp of that water is slowly going up.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:57 PM - Edit history (2)
I'm a white male, and yes, I've been the beneficiary of white privilege. The legal system treats me with kid gloves, compared with people who are black, Latino, LGBT, or other minorities. I don't get singled out by cops for harassment because of my skin color. I'm assumed to be more competent in the workplace, I don't get assholes screaming bigoted slurs at me just for existing. I don't get bad service at stores and restaurants because some shithead doesn't like the way I look. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. All the little things add up to a giant privilege chasm that benefits white males and screws black people, Latinos, Asians, women, etc. etc. etc. So I have to acknowledge that like it or not, agree with it or not, I'm a member of the Privileged Bastards Club.
And no, I don't think it's fair. Everyone should be treated with respect. Why is this concept hard?
Number23
(24,544 posts)Out of over a good 1000 regular posters.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I don't recall being asked my race when I signed up. So I doubt that even the admins know.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Because those of us that are black/Asian/Hispanic have never acknowledged that repeatedly in our posts. Even in the AA/Latin etc forums. Even when asked.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and that acknowledgement is in one of the DU threads that you yourself happen to read.
I think I see how you got to such a small number.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And the vast majority of non-white DUers are proud of that fact and have made note of it repeatedly. Not to mention threads where people post pictures or are actually asked http://www.democraticunderground.com/1187856
A whopping 30 black posters responded to the thread and I'm pretty sure that we got the vast majority of black posters on DU accounted for. And lots of these folks have fallen by the wayside since I posted this thread.
If the lack of minority posters bothers you, which I'm assuming is why you keep asking your questions, then you are by no means the only one.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I'm guessing that you are not a statistics professor.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I said point blank that the minority posters on this site acknowledge that repeatedly and then mentioned that the ones that don't mention their race tend to be white. Pretty simple to understand really so I can understand why you seem boggled.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)You have absolutely no way of knowing how many minority posters do *not* acknowledge their race.
And you also have no way of knowing that posters who do not acknowledge their race tend to be white.
This is actually hilarious. Keep your theories coming!
Number23
(24,544 posts)Because the fact of the matter is that you are only making yourself look worse than you usually make yourself look whenever the issue of race comes up on this web site. Which actually IS pretty hilarious in a "damn, this person needs a mirror" sort of way.
DU has had several non-scientific polls asking posters what their ages and races are. Many minority DUers repeatedly note that we are non-white. And I actually gave you a link where those of us in the black forum put our hands up to find out how many of us here. Now, if all of this is still somehow not enough to give you some idea of how many non-whites post here as well as the truly shocking lack of minority participation this web site suffers from, then I will leave you to file your FOI papers where you can subpoena the admins for that information.
Judging by what I've seen in polls, what I've seen from posters and what I've seen in minority forums here, there is no doubt in my mind that DU suffers from a truly tragic dearth of minority viewpoints. But you keep on laughing, Chuckles. Glad (but in no way surprised) that you think this is all kind of funny.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Oh, and the admins have no way of knowing either. So your subpoena idea would be a waste of time.
Number23
(24,544 posts)that you and I agree on absolutely nothing at all. And I'm 100% confident that I'm not the only poster with melanin who feels that way.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)Have a nice afternoon wherever you are!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And besides, "nonwhite" <> "black".
Number23
(24,544 posts)I know who shows up in these types of threads, always with the same head-shaking amount of clueless arrogance.
Your "point" has already been addressed when your equally deliberately clueless buddy asked the same "question."
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)MightyMopar
(735 posts)Some of the non whites proudly identify themselves. Now that I'm told how few blacks are on DU and believe that, I think most blacks do identify themselves and most whites do the "Colbert" and pretend they don't "see" color.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Hell there's NRA people got more than 20 sock puppets. But at least all the sock puppets have black best friends, at least that's what they tell everybody.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Which is truly beyond sad.
billh58
(6,655 posts)NRA sock puppets on this thread than AA posters.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)biblical bullshit about recompense visited on generation after generation,, that stupid fucking 'sins of the father' nonsense. Are you a creationist?
billh58
(6,655 posts)the Gungeon, I'll bet you own a big old gun too. Isn't it funny how these two mindsets often go together?
dexter sinister
(34 posts)own them, and there really is not a thing you can do about it.
billh58
(6,655 posts)Gungeon response. Check back with me when the law changes Bubba.
dexter sinister
(34 posts)It isn't working the way you probably expected...
cbrer
(1,831 posts)A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Doesn't say a word about color of bigots skin. Bigotry is practiced "equal opportunity" these days.
I'm not guilty of the sins of my forebears. No one ever gave me a thing (not generally available in American society) but a butt kicking.
One MAY be able to make a case for hidden racism having an effect on my treatment at some point. But again, I have no knowledge or complicity of that action.
If acknowledging white bigotry is an open subject, then so is all else. And that's FINE. Including historical applications.
Response to cbrer (Reply #237)
Nye Bevan This message was self-deleted by its author.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)If you are a white American can you honestly say you never gained from being white? Never closed a deal, got a job, got away with a crime or got a slap on the wrist, got a date, got a better deal, lived in a better neighborhood, got a better grade, got on a sports team, got into a club, etc.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)I believe I did, even if, as I said, I didn't recognize it.
Many sins were committed. Many sins are committed today. How does this admission move us forward?
Only the most delusional, and ignorant would argue against the reality of bigotry. While this may include most Fox viewers, I don't believe we'll run into many here.
Number23
(24,544 posts)cbrer
(1,831 posts)Although I believe you may be mischaracterizing that post. And I was just trying to express my personal views. The OP is spot on.
Number23
(24,544 posts)But sadly, I'm not in any way mischaracterizing that post or any of the countless others that person has made in this thread and others.
JReed
(149 posts)
Disapproving of the system won't be enough to change it. I was taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their attitude. But a "white" skin in the United States opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us.
Individual acts can palliate but cannot end, these problems.
To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these subject taboo. Most talk by whites about equal opportunity seems to me now to be about equal opportunity to try to get into a position of dominance while denying that systems of dominance exist.
It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly acculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.
The most intransigent aspect of racism is the part(s) based on SUBconscious or even UNconscious beliefs that there are people who simply don't count as much, for whatever reason. But the funny thing is, those people tend overwhelmingly to fall into the oppressed groups. "Oh, it's only black folk (so who cares?)," or "Oh, it's only poor folk (who are lazy and therefore deserve what they get) and old people (past their prime and useless) anyway."
The US is a nation born of genocide, suckled on slavery, and weaned on apartheid, and the weaning process has been largely confined to a bottle at board meetings.
The sin, in the eyes of the white and affluent, is not the racism itself, but being reminded of it.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)I'm sure it's just an oversight, but it wasn't written by you, and we wouldn't want anyone thinking you were plagiarizing someone else's work.
Thanks,
Sid
Edit: nevermind, I found it:
http://chlamor-deepintheheartofnowhere.blogspot.ca/2007/12/so-deeply-ingrained.html
chlamor? Where have we heard that name before?
Edit2: maybe it was written by you?
Sid
Number23
(24,544 posts)your post.
But this comment sums it up completely:
The sin, in the eyes of the white and affluent, is not the racism itself, but being reminded of it.
Yep. Where being CALLED racist is actually worse than BEING racist. People who feel that if they can just ignore/minimize/mock racism enough it will go away. It's a fucked up phenomena and there are lots of people afflicted by it. And some of them have (stupidly) decided to show up in this thread to exhibit it first hand.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)In 2013, when two of my kids have no memory of there ever being a white President of the United States, not so much.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Your disgust with this thread but seeming inability to stay away from it is... interesting.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Very few threads here "disgust" me. And the ones that do invariably are hidden within minutes by a 6-0 jury vote.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)It's more complicated in that. It's more than bigotry, although that's obviously part of it. Some really think the Repubby platform is what represents them best and some are just low information voters who get their "edumacations" on Faux news.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Nick recalls his father's advice:
"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one," he told me, "just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."
What he forgot to add is "...and there are stupid people who don't realize this."
Or perhaps: "Why don't these jerks have more compassion towards others?"
Splinters, beams, and eyes and all that.
thucythucy
(9,043 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)
For the majority of middle class families, the root of their capital wealth is the first home ever owned by that family. Often, this came in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when the GI Bill offered federal underwriting to veterans returning from WWII wanting to purchase their family's first ever home. This fueled both the enormous expansion of home-owning among the middle and working class, and the rise of the suburbs (which was also subsidized by multi-billion dollar federal investment in the interstate highway system and state subsidies of intrastate freeways).
At that time--the 1940s into the 1950s (and in some areas well into the 1960s) "red lining" was still a common practice. Red lining meant that banks would not offer mortgages to families living in certain areas--minority neighborhoods. At the same time, African American and Hispanic (and sometimes Jewish) families were out and out prohibited from moving into certain neighborhoods.
This meant that, at the time of the greatest expansion of home ownership in American history--bringing many working class families into the middle class--blacks and Latinos in particular were all but excluded. By the time that exclusion ended -- with the Fair Housing Act of the 1960s -- the post war boom of home ownership brought about by the original GI Bill was over. And so, communities of color absolutely missed out on this opportunity, through no possible fault of their own.
As I said, family after family can trace their current financial status to that initial period when, unlike times since, the federal government actually invested and underwrote home ownership to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars. This investment went overwhelmingly to white families.
Anyone who has inherited a nest egg that originated in that era -- any white person whose family was able to secure them a college loan by using their home as collateral, or was able to trade up to a better home by using that first house as collateral, or was able to purchase a home in a more affluent neighborhood, thus ensuring a better education for their children because of better funded schools, is a recipient of white privilege.
This doesn't make you a racist, it doesn't make you evil, it shouldn't necessarily even make you feel guilty. But this built-in disparity in the way our society developed HAS to be acknowledged if we're going even to begin to address the racism so inherent in our society.
I could offer similar instances of white MALE privilege, as opposed to simply white privilege, but this post is already too long.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)the gendered analysis at all, in fact.
billh58
(6,655 posts)the post that you're referring to, it was about "white privilege" which also includes women the last I heard. The closing paragraph pretty much nails it:
"I could offer similar instances of white MALE privilege, as opposed to simply white privilege, but this post is already too long."
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Responses to the OP will, necessarily, be in reference to the OP.
billh58
(6,655 posts)mistake before. When you reply directly to a poster, you are replying to that particular post, and NOT the OP. Admittedly, your habit of ignoring the salient points of a post you respond to is a good debating technique, but is at its core disingenuous.
You did not respond to the OP -- you responded to thucythucy, who made an entirely valid point about ALL whites inheriting a privilege made possible by outright racism which was, and is, a direct carryover from slavery and all of its evils.
White male privilege extends to misogyny as well as racism, which is the broad subject of the OP. A few sub-threads have focused on the racism aspect of this subject, which applies to both white genders.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)insisting that responses are not in reference to the OP.
billh58
(6,655 posts)who jumped into a sub-thread to attack a post I made to another DU-er. I merely responded to your condescending snark.
Toodles...
thucythucy
(9,043 posts)the vast majority of "GI"s that benefited from the "GI Bill"--which included federal subsidies for state and community college educations--were male. Women did benefit during World War II by working in defense industries in unprecedented numbers, and for unprecedented wages for women--but those jobs almost immedately reverted to their "male only" status as soon as the war ended, leaving women with the traditional employment options of secretary, teacher, nurse, and "home maker."
To the extent that "GI"s married women, or had daughters, those women and girls were able to benefit from the home mortgage underwriting, but only as legal appendages of the male. Even a woman veteran who could use the mortgage program very often could not then earn enough income to pay off a mortgage on her own, while men often could. And well into the 1970s women trying to enter college to study traditionally "male" areas such as engineering, medicine (except as nurses--remember, the rule used to be men became doctors, women became nurses), chemistry, law, etc., faced incredible and generally blatent discrimination.
If you're saying that over time this male benefit has been filtered out, at least to some extent, as a result of the work of feminists and the gains of the feminist movement, I'd agree. Disparities in rates of males vs. females in higher education HAVE evened out--though last I heard there is still a disparity in incomes derived from the same jobs.
Of course, there are still aspects of discrimination that women face, even at colleges and universities, that men don't. Men obviously are raped and sexually abused, but all the information I've seen says that women in college, for example, are at far higher risk of being raped on campus or in the course of their college careers than men. For men to think of rape as a "women's issue" is therefore another part of male privilege, since men aren't nearly as likely, for instance, to "choose" not to take a night course because of the fear of being raped while crossing campus at night to return to their dorm. Not having to make college or even career choices in regard to the danger of rape and sexual assault then is another form of male privilege, though in that case the benefit of this privilege generally speaking acrues across racial and ethnic lines.
It's important to remember that privilege and lack of privilege have effects that are often felt for generations. The destruction of African American families, for instance, by white slave owners had an impact that extended far beyond emancipation in 1863-65. The impact of racial bias in the expansion of home ownership in the 1940s and '50s means that, on average, white families still have access to greater financial resources than non-white families. So even if you believe we've made progress in addressing this sort of social bias (and I believe we have) there's still a lot that needs to be addressed.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)July 21, 2011 by Jacqueline Darien, CFP, CMFC
Women control about $19 trillion of wealth, including earned and inherited assets, which accounts for more than three-quarters of our nationʼs financial resources. The vast majority of women must handle their own finances at some point in their lives — as many as 85 percent of us. However, I have found that a fairly large number of women do not have the financial savvy to manage their assets.
http://womensvoicesforchange.org/financial-knowledge-empowerment.htm
thucythucy
(9,043 posts)though it seems mostly to focus on health issues related to menopause. Stuff on how to deal with vaginal dryness, calcium loss in bones, etc.
Unfortunately, I don't see any links or footnotes offering supporting data for this conclusion. Nor do they break it down much. Are we talking about women millionaires and billionaires, that is, elites, or is the wealth more evenly distributed?
Another look at this same issue can be found here:
http://www.insightcced.org/uploads/CRWG/LiftingAsWeClimb-ExecutiveSummary-embargoed-0303.pdf
This is a report produced by the Center for Community Economic Development, and includes data on incomes and available wealth, and breaks down the data to show disparities between white couples, white singles, non-white couples, non-white singles, single men, single women, etc.
From what I can see there is still a fairly significant gender gap, which grows much larger when you also factor in race.
And then there's this, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2007/tabA-3.xls
which demonstrates that as of 2007, "women who were full-time wage and salary workers
had median weekly earnings of $614, or about 80 percent of the $766 median for their male counterparts." Though there has been improvement since the 1970s, when the gender gap first began to be measured, there evidently is still a ways to go.
You seem hugely invested in this idea that somehow there is no such thing as male privilege, or at least male economic privilege. (No response to comments about factors such as sexual violence--I could add in the effects of domestic violence as well). Which would, ironically, seem to support the OP, on how some folks on DU have a great deal of trouble dealing with the reality of white male privilege in this society.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)of wealth.
Similarly, you seem hugely invested in downplaying the privilege of white women. Now that we're done impugning each other's motives, what was wrong with having a civil discussion on this matter?
thucythucy
(9,043 posts)So is "control." These articles say women "control the vast majority of all purchase decisions," and this in turn leads the various authors to the conclusion that women "control" this wealth.
The one doesn't necessarily follow the other. My grandmother would routinely do the shopping for her family. She therefore "controlled" those "purchasing decisions." That doesn't mean she actually controlled or owned that money--it was my grandfather's paycheck, after all, and had he decided to withhold it, her "control" of these "purchasing decisions" would have been suddenly nill. And nothing you've posted shows me that "the intergenerational transfer of wealth" (which was indeed what I started out by describing) now favors women over men. For that we'd need a study of median figures of inherited wealth for women vs. men, females vs. males, which I haven't as yet seen. As I said, women, particularly white women, have indeed made progress--though the CCED study I linked to would seem to indicate that women of color are in fact falling further behind.
And of course white women have privilege--it's a property of their whiteness. But in relation to white men that racial privilege disappears. Similarly, white women married to millionaires, or who are millionaires themselves, are most likely "priviledged" when it comes to working class men--Ann Romney being a case in point. But this doesn't mean that white male privilege doesn't exist, nor does it mean that there still isn't such a thing as gender bias and inequity.
And as I mentioned rape, sexual violence, and domestic violence are at the same time enforcers of and examples of male privilege, and this spills over into the economic sphere as well. Men, by and large, are able to live much if not most of their personal and professional lives without having to worry about being raped, at least not outside of a prison, certainly not by a woman. Though, of course, sexual violence against men does occur, and there are instances of women abusing men. But rape and sexual violence are realities that almost ALL women (and girls) have to confront at one time or another, and are experienced by anywhere from a quarter to a third of all women during the course of their lives. Men generally don't confront that sort of raw reality--and that too is a form of male privilege. It means, for instance, that women entering certain career paths (such as the military, or night shift medical work) have to be cognizent of that risk, and make economic and other decisions accordingly, thus leaving the field relatively open for men.
By all means, I'm all for a civil discussion.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)For example, back in 2008, U.S. News and World Report released data telling us that women controlled 60% of the wealth in the United States. That figure was estimated to be approximately $10-$12 trillion. At the same time, U.S. News and World Report projected that women will control $22 trillion of all wealth in the United states by 2020. That’s just a decade away!
Considering data released in 2009 by The Nielsen Company revealed almost all income growth in the United States over the past 15-20 years came from women, that U.S. News and World Report projection shouldn’t be very shocking. The Small Business Administration has reported in recent years that women-owned businesses are far outpacing all other businesses in terms of growth. The bottom-line is that women are making their presence in the economy better known.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2010/07/28/women-making-economic-strides-and-not-slowing-down/
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Unlike white privilege, male privilege doesn't exist.
In both asia and the US parents select their children's sex. In asia they select boys because being male is an attribute which gives the child an edge. In the US parents select girls because being female is an attribute which gives the child an edge.
Women control most of the wealth in the US primarily because they inherit most of it. So, I doubt that you can make a "similar" case for male privilege.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Class gives one much greater privilege than being a white man alone, especially in this day and age. Although WMP certainly does exist, the fact of the matter is that lots of white men have been given the short end of the stick in this country just as minorities and women have. It's much easier to get someone to acknowledge the privilege that they do have when you first acknowledge the privilege that they don't have.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)...although it could be if one is in a position of power.
Patriarchy oppresses us all. While white men do not have the same disadvantages in society that non-whites and women generally have, we are still victims of a patriarchal system even as we unwittingly work to perpetuate that system.
Skittles
(169,690 posts)the cool ones think the leveling of power is progress; the rest, not so much......they are SKEERED
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)From blacks bring enslaved, to blacks being segregated, to a black guy being President. And to top it off, he gets re-elected handily, beating the pants off an establishment white guy.
And my kids have friends of many races, and really don't care what race anyone is. That makes me very happy.
I LOVE the progress we have made as a nation. Anyone who is "skeered" is an utter moron.
Skittles
(169,690 posts)REAL MEN DON'T GET THREATENED BY PROGRESS!
uponit7771
(93,491 posts)sylvi
(813 posts)But you have to be well off to a certain degree to consider it. Try finding an audience for White Privilege lectures in the guy standing knee deep in a ditch, shoveling shit for the same minimum wage as his black brother shoveling beside him. Worrying about having the money to buy next week's groceries, or to keep the power from being turned off, or to pay for his child's medicine, just like his black brother next to him. Telling him he won't be looked at as funny when he goes in the dollar store, or be treated more politely by the cop who pulls him over (even though he's driving his clunker as carefully as possible to avoid a ticket he can't afford), or get better service in restaurant he won't be going to anyway because he doesn't have the money, or how the railroads were built on the back of slave labor, means nothing to him in his day to day life of just getting by.
That's if he has a job at all.
And things just get worse with each passing day as income disparity widens as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and more and more join him in his predicament. So can we give at least as much attention to class and wealth distribution as color? When his and his family's bellies are full and they have medical care and he's not worried about being evicted, he might be more receptive to academic discussions of White Privilege in history. He might even pay more attention to the gazes of those dollar store clerks.
crazyrayray
(19 posts)Is this documented somewhere, or is it just a fun word? The real thing to do would be observe and discard races. Okay you are American Indian, ok wonderful, Have a seat and the hostess will be right out to seat you. African American: Two tickets to Some Movie Theater Operational Specialist: $20 for 2 adults.
I never saw the point in identifying race other than for a detailed description of a person. What is the point? Taxes are the same for Whites, blacks, Hispanics, AI, PI, O, ME and all others. Adding in race is racism. Why else would you need to know race?
sylvi
(813 posts)The current discussion of white privilege, however, is the acknowledgement that, at this point in time, it does exist (though its applicability in the context of any particular situation can be debated). Racism does exist and effects people in real ways, blacks are less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in our legal system, they do suffer indignities that a white person wouldn't, etc. White privilege is not being subject to, or having to worry about those things. It doesn't necessarily imply that you or I are at fault for those things, though it would be better if all people of all races worked together for solutions.
My post was simply to suggest that the lower a white person is on the socioeconomic scale, the less likely they will be to realize, acknowledge or be affected in a positive way by white privilege.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)This is Frank Little, a white guy, who had the privilege of being lynched, after being dragged from his boarding house, by 6 hooded cowards, with a previously broken leg, dragged with a rope behind a car to his hanging, having his genitals nearly severed with a sharp instrument, and hung with a rope. But it was too short, and they thought they saw some movement, so they yanked him down and strung him up again with a longer rope.
This was because the people in his union wanted 8 hour days, 40 hour weeks, an end to child labor, and thought the workers should own and run the business, as opposed the the thieving bastards who consider the biggest part of our labor surplus, and thus available for them to take.
Frank was in a union called the International Workers of the World, a union stated that "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common". He would tell you he wasn't any more special than the thousands of other men, women, children, babies that were hurt or killed, I suspect, but a victim of those doing the bidding of the wealthy.
That union, unlike the AFL and others, welcomed working people regardless of skin color, sex, creed, religion, political affiliation - none of that mattered. When they came into a meeting where black and white people were separated by state law, they told them to break it and sit together.
They knew that unrestrained capitalism was a greater enemy to all of them than any of their differences, and as long as they fought those smaller battles their opponents would continue to win the big ones. Unlike the special interest groups of today, they fought to get more for people who had less, and often lost everything in the process.
They refused to give in and the government and business mounted a campaign to destroy them, so business could ally with the unions who would treat their workers more like the capitalist wanted them to. (NLRB estimated yearly cost of employing finks, spies, local and federal government oppression at $80,000,000/yr, or about a $1 billion/yr today).
Talk about equality. Police would beat and shoot women and children just as eagerly. When women were imprisoned in the Spokane jails there is testimony that the police began to solicit clients and prostitute the inmates, while turning up the steam and nearly cooking the men in their cells. There's equality for you
Sure hope he, and all the others who were clubbed, imprisoned, shot, lynched, tied to trees and beaten before having hot tar poured into their wounds didn't suffer all that just so we could sit around and carp at each other while Mr. Charlie is making off with the rent money.
Because if we don't forget, the workers today might just figure out that much of this is by design, (think of how much of this is about property and assets, or the lack of it, a problem removed when we own industry). that it is exacerbated by our opponents as a strategy, and that if we join together to own the things that the wealthy class has now, those things they use to control and manipulate us, the things WE can run just as well as they can, then just maybe the practices in the OP will have much less to feed off of.
Just thinkin...
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)Just FYI.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)I would have sworn I read in Haywood's book that he was half. I will run across that reference again one day soon.
Regardless, I didn't mean to slight him, because it is important and I overlooked it. I think that's common with me when I look at what happened to so many of these folks, whether they were native american, black, white, female, male, young, old, whatever. That all pales compared to the oppression and disrespect which has nothing to do with color of anyone's skin or sex. Mr. Charlie just thinks he, or she, is entitled to the output of others labor.
Regardless of my omission he was one of thousands of victims of the wealthy class, victims that today number in the tens of millions. It's as if, because Mr. Charlie and friends have taken so much, that all those issues are amplified, and now become tools to distract and divide us, helping keep us where we are.
I will have to watch it, eh?
Thank you.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Can benefit from their association with white men as a wife, daughter, sibling, and mother.
Have all their faults and flaws into perfect imperfections.
Easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring women like them.
Can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer any communications without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of their race.
When told about our national language or about “civilization,” they are shown the people of their color made it what it was.
Can turn on the television, open a newspaper, or go online and see people of their race widely represented.
Can remain oblivious of the language and of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in their culture any penalty.
Are feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
Can use the “sheer fear of tears” to their advantage. (Sarah Jaffe calls this “White Lady Tears.”)
Are not compelled by the rules of their gender to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
Are allowed to be vulnerable, playful, and “soft” without calling their worthiness as a member of their race being called into question.
Are seen as the embodiments of value and purity and, due to their phenotypes (especially if it’s close(r) to the blonde-and-blue-eyed ideal), be considered worthy of protection—including having nations go to war over this purity and piety–and instantly become the objects of universal desire.
They are seen as the default and the ideal embodiment of physical beauty and sexual attractiveness. This idea(l) is replicated, despite the efforts of visual diversity, in all form of media, from paintings to plays to porn.
Clearly the list is not exhaustive, but it is a very good starting to place to discuss the privileges that are attached to a White female body, that is often ignored or hotly denied in feminist spaces. If we simply rely on the term White privilege, we ignore the way that it is experienced differently by gender, thus giving White women a chance to blame patriarchy for the White supremacist world in which we live. Using the term White female privilege means accountability, and therefore; it is no surprise to me, that many would stand on their head to deny its very existence.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And surprise surprise, the white males have no idea it was going on
I thought it was long gone too until I started listening and stopped talking...
Response to MightyMopar (Original post)
Post removed
Lex
(34,108 posts)Nice try, though.
Enjoy your stay.
OccupyManny
(60 posts)I'm mixed race I suppose. My grandmother on mothers side was German. My Grandfather was Brazilian but half Portuguese and half Native South American. My grandfather on my father's side was Samoan and my Grandmother was Australian but half English and half Aborigine. I look like any other white guy with wavy dirty blond hair. My wife is from Toronto but half Sri Lankan and half Swedish. Our kids look totally white.
I don't feel like I have special privledges.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)are what s's wrong with this country.They have been hurting us for years.Those pasty bloated white men who use to rule the country/world. They had power for too long and they think they are still relevant, they're not any longer. They can't accept it. This country [not enough and not fast enough] has changed. We have women, people of color, gay people all in charge
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Can you provide links to comments that show people here won't admit white privilege or whatever?
MightyMopar
(735 posts)"there is none so blind as those who will not see"
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)The question was 'do you have to insult DU to make your point'?
57 recs, that's quite a number, yessiree.
It doesn't change the fact that your OP makes DU suck.
In fact, all it tells me is that 57 people helped make DU suck today.
Wait, that's not quite accurate either. As it turns out, there are over 400 replies to this thread. So 57 "let's make DU suck" recs added to the number of people who DIDN'T rec your post but responded to it, well that's a lot of people who relished the opportunity to make DU suck. Even I helped make DU suck today.
And the fact that you're crowing about how many recs your thread got in the thread you started indicates to me that it was premeditated attempt to make DU suck.
Whoopity-fucking-doo.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Considering that African American support is a cornerstone of Democratic party that is a big problem.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Good job.
If you really believed that addressing division by creating more division was the way to go about it, I understand how this thread ended up might come as a surprise. I've seen these OPs many times, and whatever the intent, no matter what good place it comes from, it usually ends up just like this, a battlefield where all the casualties are due to friendly fire. This thread was popcorn from go.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)I guess it's like one of those paintings that look champagne glasses when you look at it one way or women's breasts when you at it another way. Many people including myself think that people "who don't see color" really are under the illusion racism doesn't exist.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)Divisive, obliquely antagonistic OP, drizzled with a fine call-out balsamic vinaigrette.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Not premeditating making DU look bad, DU looks like it's gonna look, I can't "premeditate" that. I think many are rexamining their thinking.
ElboRuum
(4,717 posts)So what you're saying is that this problem is so great... so expansive... so utterly rampant on DU... that you thought it was well within your purview to mend a divisive concept by further dividing. Uh-huh. Got it.
If there are people not admitting that WMP exists or is a problem, then who specifically are they? Are you talking to me? I hope not because I do acknowledge that what you call "privilege" exists. I don't call it that for various reasons, but we can agree that it does. And what, now, is this WMP? A handy dandy little acronym, a shorthand for slight, how lovely.
Oh, you weren't talking to me? Oh, so you were talking to all the other WMs on this board, well at least those who aren't acknowledging their P. Well, maybe you should speak directly to those WMs who are casually disregarding their P, because god knows all of this P everywhere is a problem. However, those of us WMs who are carefully mindful of their P don't appreciate the intimation that somehow we aren't sufficiently concerned about our P just because we aren't jumping at the chance to restate our vehement opposition to ignoring all the P around here, or calling out the P of others. One's relationship to P is very personal indeed, and most people don't like the nature, size, and quantity of their P called out in public. That's just human nature. And while I am very comfortable with the realities regarding my P, I take issue in principle to calling people out simply because they haven't yet realized just how burdensome and widespread their P has become. Usually, such things only serve to make people deny their P, become self-conscious about their P, and is that healthy? I think not.
No, perhaps a better tack would be to present a call to those who are still in denial about their P that we are an understanding group. We should make them feel comfortable to discuss their P, without judgment and without disdain. We should give them a forum, an outlet, an inviting receptacle if you will, to expel their P openly so that they can finally acknowledge it, with all of its sight and smell. It can't be good for them, holding in their P like they do.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)I thought the Democratic Party agenda was for all the races to work together for the betterment of all and to do that we need to figure out how we got where we are.
billh58
(6,655 posts)several denials that white male privilege exists, or even ever existed. I don't believe that most DUers are "insulted" by this inconvenient truth, and take it as a call to learn from our past mistakes.
It is interesting that those who seem to be having the hardest time with coming to grips with the concept of WMP, are also outspoken NRA sock puppets who just happen to be mostly white males. Go figure...
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)billh58
(6,655 posts)this video. This should be required viewing for all those who deny that white privilege is deeply ingrained in our society, and that they are not responsible for the "sins" of their ancestors.
If facing this inconvenient truth about ourselves and our society makes DU "suck," then it needs to suck 24/7 until we, as a community, can acknowledge that white privilege not only exists, but is a cancer which allows racism and inequality to thrive all across this land.
White Male Privilege adds the very neoconservative and religious-right social injustice of misogyny on top of racism, and further weakens our country from within.