"On White Privilege"

[Gadarene]

That's a good question. What's going on with those working class boys? Are they being encouraged into trades not traditionally taken up by women in high numbers (plumbers, electricians etc)? I'd genuinely like to know.

Clearly for those guys, something else is in play, and the fact that they can be identified by class brings us back around to intersectionality, and the need to look at other social and economic factors.

Intersectionality is garbage. It is just all the individual equality movements cobbled together, with all of the same flaws. White people still can't suffer racism, men still can't suffer sexism etc. It is about as useful to me as the notion of privilege. Let's use something better, something that actually works.

However... that doesn't change the fact that women face many disadvantages. I know it, you know it, we all know it from basic life experience, don't we? If you don't, I'll be happy to tell you how I got kicked out of college when I was pregnant, and ask how many men that happens to...

I've never once said they didn't. And yet so do men, and yet we are constantly browbeaten for being privileged. Women aren't, despite having privileges by the same metrics used to attack whites and males for having privilege.

 

[Paidiske]

Women are browbeaten for being "privileged" plenty! Isn't that what's behind all the resentful backlash against feminists?

 

[Gadarene]

Women are browbeaten for being "privileged" plenty! Isn't that what's behind all the resentful backlash against feminists?

Yes, and look how seriously that notion is taken by media, academia, govt etc compared to the notion that women are oppressed.

The resentful backlash against feminism exists because their theories are WRONG and actually contributing to inequality. That failure is an absolute indictment of the movement. But heaven forfend the sacred feminism be criticised, or it be suggested that we replace it with something better.

 

[Paidiske]

The resentful backlash against feminism exists because their theories are WRONG and actually contributing to inequality. That failure is an absolute indictment of the movement. But heaven forfend the sacred feminism be criticised, or it be suggested that we replace it with something better.

How is it contributing to inequality that feminists have fought for and, in many places, won the right to vote, to own property, to pursue an education, to enter the professions, and so on? That looks like an awful lot of progress, from where I'm standing.

What would you replace it with, that would allow half of humankind the same benefits that feminism has produced? Or what current theory do you identify as contributing to inequality, and what would you propose instead?

 

[Gadarene]

How is it contributing to inequality that feminists have fought for and, in many places, won the right to vote, to own property, to pursue an education, to enter the professions, and so on? That looks like an awful lot of progress, from where I'm standing.

Dear me. Did I say it was a problem that they had done these things? No.

But they do have a tendency to view women as "more oppressed than" men, assuming they even view men as suffering gender-based oppression at all.

When I speak up about men's issues online, the group most likely to get in my way are feminists. This is not least due to the fact that they are so shriekingly hostile to criticism. When I point out that last November in the UK it was feminists who obstructed International Men's Day events on the topic of male suicide, they get stroppy. How am I supposed to criticise what happened, and the obstacles facing men's activists, without criticising what feminists do?

The fact I have to fight an "equality movement" for equality is quite telling.

To me feminism is like Christianity - the good it's done doesn't alter the very fundamentally flawed ideas at its core.

What would you replace it with, that would allow half of humankind the same benefits that feminism has produced? Or what current theory do you identify as contributing to inequality, and what would you propose instead?

Drop the group-based approaches to problems of inequality. These are problems originating from assuming each group can be generalised and have irreconcilable experiences - you aren't going to fix the problem by doing the same thing, that's just daft.

Drop the utterly pointless, divisive, and groundless hierarchising, like the notion that women don't have privilege, that whites can never suffer racism. They do, and they can. And the exact same reasons used to deny that say, women have privilege, are just as applicable to the notion of men having privilege. Outside of those easily wowed by this social science 101 jargon, it's not fooling anyone.

My whole schtick on this thread is that I see no reason to play along with people talking about privilege because in terms of how it practically used it is completely rigged against one group. I would maybe suggest dropping the notion of "oppression" entirely, as the term necessitates an "oppressor". You need someone at the top of the progressive stack to blame all the problems on. That's us. White men.

And in doing so, problems like the fact that white males from poor backgrounds are actually the least likely to get into higher education here are overlooked.

 

[Paidiske]

I think rigid gender roles etc oppress men as well as women, but on the whole I think men have had less negative outcomes due to that. But to me the feminist agenda will benefit both sexes.

So you think we should, what, not make any analyses of social dynamics and structures at all? We should look at each person as an individual and seek to make changes for that individual, in isolation? That sounds very inefficient, when many factors - like decent education - would influence groups as a whole. And there are economies of scale, and all of that.

To my mind, the oppressors in our society are the very wealthiest; those who control things like the drug trade, the arms trade, other big damaging global industries. That's only a tiny sliver of the group "white men."

 

[Gadarene]

I think rigid gender roles etc oppress men as well as women, but on the whole I think men have had less negative outcomes due to that. But to me the feminist agenda will benefit both sexes.

Given the last 50 years, it won't benefit men enough. More could be done, but the hostility of feminism to considering some of its core principles may be wrong is part of the of the reason progress is being slowed.

So you think we should, what, not make any analyses of social dynamics and structures at all? We should look at each person as an individual and seek to make changes for that individual, in isolation? That sounds very inefficient, when many factors - like decent education - would influence groups as a whole. And there are economies of scale, and all of that.

Analysis is one thing. Prescribing behaviour is another. E.g. it's patriarchal to suggest that women in trouble need to be saved by men. And yet we only see men being encouraged to challenge their male privilege and to step up to help women solve women's issues. You don't see women being asked to do the same to help solve men's issues - heck, you'd have to get enough people to admit female privilege even exists to do that. So nothing has actually been changed here by prescribing behaviour along group lines. Women are still the class that men need to step up and save.

To my mind, the oppressors in our society are the very wealthiest; those who control things like the drug trade, the arms trade, other big damaging global industries. That's only a tiny sliver of the group "white men."

Class is often the most relevant and most ignored factor in many of these analyses.

 

[Gadarene]

You don't have to cherry pick to prove white privilege. You can go straight down the line. Housing, education, criminal justice, medical, employment, in all these areas, whites have been proven to have an advantage and always have. Is that cherry picking? The only disadvantage white people have is when individuals are born in poverty but the poverty rate is lower for whites as a whole so there's another area where whites have an adventage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ation-ignored-by-policy-warns-Ucas-chief.html

Again, this simply does not fit into the notion of whites can't be disadvantaged. You can only prop up notions of privilege by cherry-picking the issues that you use to conclude privilege exists.

 

[SummerMadness]

No, that sounds like an issue of low credit scores.

There are the facts...

Racial predatory loans fueled U.S. housing crisis: study

Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing crisis, according to a new study published in the American Sociological Review.

Even African-Americans with similar credit profiles and down-payment ratios to white borrowers were more likely to receive subprime loans, according to the study.

It could be both. If thug life has you presenting yourself in an interview in a way that doesn’t seem in line with the job you are applying for, then thug life is a problem

They're not receiving interviews, the study generated resumes and changed only the name, everything else was identical. Names perceived as "black-sounding" received less responses. "It could be..." does not apply.

Again; perhaps both. I thug life gives you the appearance of being a threat, thug life is a problem

Again, the study created identical profiles, with everything except difference in ethnicity, those perceived as black received less of a response.

If thug life has you wearing tatoos, and clothing representing neighborhood gangs, then thug life is a problem

Most people accosted by stop and frisk policies do not have tattoos (why does that matter?) or clothing representing neighborhood gangs. The policy has been demonstrated to yield little in uncovering wrongdoing and is driven by racial bias

that happens in all lines of work

And when it's uncovered, it taints cases and will get charges thrown out. And that does not happen in all lines of work.

Sorry, but as long as people have a choice, there will always be those who will choose to hate.

And that says nothing about whether racism will always remain, it will not.

There is nothing wrong with fighting racism, but it shouldn’t stop there; there is a lot of personal responsibility that is needed as well.

What does personal responsibility have to do with anything? When I am unjustifiably stopped by the police, what is my personal responsibility? When an African American experiences job and housing discrimination, what is their personal responsibility? You're right, there is a lot of personal responsibility needed, the personal responsibility of those perpetuating racist policies and attitudes.

 

[Gadarene]

Thank you.
How would you summarize the state of affairs then?

Well, that the privilege conceit is as much political ideology as the ideas of its critics, for one.

Secondly, that it is an inadequate means of describing the world and attaining equality, as it leads to a propensity to overlook issues that affect the dominant social groups.

Thirdly, it is often used as a means to single out the dominant social group for failings that multiple other races are guilty of.

 

[tatteredsoul]

​

Fabulous. Absolutely fabulous. Hear that, white people? Even when you do the right thing and contribute to the breaking down of racial barriers, well, you must have been doing it because you have a guilty conscience and just want to silence nonwhite people.

Sod this stupid rhetorical crap. There is literally no way to win with people who think like you.

​

You mean exactly how the fans of the white privilege concept in this thread have been treating those who disagree with it?



No, it isn't.



If these crimes are being used as an example to prop up the white privilege concept - why shouldn't people point out why they think these examples are misplaced? Basically, we can't challenge the examples put forward to show white privilege exists because MUH RACISM

You can't challenge it because you think it is ridiculous, or non existent. Plus, you keep talking like there is a game to be played: "Hear that white people... can't win." What GAME are you trying to win? This isn't a simulation or competition of races. And, you were the one who brought up white people voting Obama in to keep the black man down, and then you get your feelings when someone actually says why Americans voted Obama in. I was in Times Square in 2008 with CNN During the election. I spoke to a hundred people around me at least. The main reason 20+ college kids voted for Obama was because they were tired of the same face in the white house.

Those people desperately clinging to their confederate culture still voted for Obama by lesser of two evils, and some even said that, "maybe of there is a black president, people will stop complaining about racism." Other people I am sure can attest to this; it isn't a singular issue.

So, you get out of here with your mentality of throwing stones and then hiding your hands. Just because you are ignorant of your surroundings doesn't mean you are right. It means you are ignorant.

And no amount of an attempt to ridicule or marginalization will help you. I dont think you are racist just to put it out... i dont think you have nearly enough influence to substantiate your ignorance or prejudice. But I do think you are ludicrous - almost child like (in the way you often throw stones and hid your hand - or act like you did nothing wrong. You and a few others on this board have a knackered habit for that type of behavior - as well as ignoring everyone's social position except your own, and people who think like you. You wouldn't know social injustice if it claimed you were under arrest and choked you out on camera while telling you to stop resisting.

(Rhetorical: Are you even from America?)

 

[Smidlee]

No one is pretending.
That is no excuse to ignore victims and not try to raise consciousness.
Obviously beautiful privilege exists.

How about just be thankful the way God made you and do the best you can. No one chooses their race, parents, the time their were born, etc. The choices that made the major impact on someone's life were made before that person was born. I know it can be tough to accept this but I believe we be a lot better off. Everyone wants to see themselves as a victims while Christianity is all about making someone victorious no matter what state they find themselves in.
What I want to raise people's consciousness on is the one thing they can choose which made the greatest impact on my life, accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

 

[Gadarene]

You can't challenge it because you think it is ridiculous, or non existent.

I think that point went over your head somewhat.

Plus, you keep talking like there is a game to be played: "Hear that white people... can't win." What GAME are you trying to win? This isn't a simulation or competition of races.

No, indeed it isn't. Well done. It was an idiom. "White people can't win" because no matter what they do people like you will find a way to spin it as white people acting in bad faith.

And, you were the one who brought up white people voting Obama in to keep the black man down, and then you get your feelings when someone actually says why Americans voted Obama in. I was in Times Square in 2008 with CNN During the election. I spoke to a hundred people around me at least. The main reason 20+ college kids voted for Obama was because they were tired of the same face in the white house.

Those people desperately clinging to their confederate culture still voted for Obama by lesser of two evils, and some even said that, "maybe of there is a black president, people will stop complaining about racism." Other people I am sure can attest to this; it isn't a singular issue.

See, now you're qualifying your remarks and making it clear that you're referring to some white people, not all. Some whites voted Obama in for what you see as good intentions, some for bad. Your initial remark only referred to the bad attitudes among white voters.

So, you get out of here with your mentality of throwing stones and then hiding your hands. Just because you are ignorant of your surroundings doesn't mean you are right. It means you are ignorant.

You have no moral high ground to preach to me here, champ. Get the forest out of your eye.

And no amount of an attempt to ridicule or marginalization will help you. I dont think you are racist just to put it out...i dont think you have nearly enough influence to substantiate your ignorance or prejudice. But I do think you are ludicrous - almost child like (in the way you often throw stones and hid your hand - or act like you did nothing wrong. You and a few others on this board have a knackered habit for that type of behavior - as well as ignoring everyone's social position except your own, and people who think like you.

You're confusing ignorance for contempt - after challenging those opposing views and finding them to be utterly vacuous.

You wouldn't know social injustice if it claimed you were under arrest and choked you out on camera while telling you to stop resisting.

Ah yes. Because I'm white and disagreeing with some jumped-up social justice warrior, I can't possibly have experienced injustice.

Boy I sure do want to join up with people like you! For equality!

(Rhetorical: Are you even from America?)

UK.

 

[Rick Otto]

How about just be thankful the way God made you and do the best you can. No one chooses their race, parents, the time their were born, etc. The choices that made the major impact on someone's life were made before that person was born. I know it can be tough to except this but I believe we be a lot better off. Everyone wants to see themselves as a victims while Christianity is all about making someone victorious no matter what state they find themselves in.
What I want to raise people's consciousness on is the one thing they can choose which made the greatest impact on my life, accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

Awesome good attitude! You rock steady, bro.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think that point went over your head somewhat.



No, indeed it isn't. Well done. It was an idiom. "White people can't win" because no matter what they do people like you will find a way to spin it as white people acting in bad faith.



See, now you're qualifying your remarks and making it clear that you're referring to some white people, not all. Some whites voted Obama in for what you see as good intentions, some for bad. Your initial remark only referred to the bad attitudes among white voters.



You have no moral high ground to preach to me here, champ. Get the forest out of your eye.



You're confusing ignorance for contempt - after challenging those opposing views and finding them to be utterly vacuous.



Ah yes. Because I'm white and disagreeing with some jumped-up social justice warrior, I can't possibly have experienced injustice.

Boy I sure do want to join up with people like you! For equality!



UK.

While I don't completely agree with you, I do recognize your lack of animosity and appreciate your humor in how you can phrase things.

"Win" like other words, can be somewhat loaded for victims.
Us whiteys don't get it... not because we are stupid, just because the reasons for terms being loaded is just not part of our experience.
It's a term of competition, in a discussion where co-operation is critical to success ( a win) for everyone. That's all. I enjoy white privileges, so I feel I can & should be accommodating of the sensitivity.
I do enjoy your participation here, and your concerns deserve attention.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, that the privilege conceit is as much political ideology as the ideas of its critics, for one.

Secondly, that it is an inadequate means of describing the world and attaining equality, as it leads to a propensity to overlook issues that affect the dominant social groups.

Thirdly, it is often used as a means to single out the dominant social group for failings that multiple other races are guilty of.

Everybody else being dirty does not excuse us, but I sympathize.
Excuse me, I can't grasp what you mean that it " is political ideology". It sounds like you are using the term political ideology as if it in itself, a bad thing. Maybe you are meaning it like it is a good thing, but too much of it is a bad thing.

You seem to acknowledge it exists, but want to excuse it because everybody does it. What am I missing in your perspective?

 

[Gadarene]

Everybody else being dirty does not excuse us, but I sympathize.
Excuse me, I can't grasp what you mean that it " is political ideology". It sounds like you are using the term political ideology as if it in itself, a bad thing. Maybe you are meaning it like it is a good thing, but too much of it is a bad thing.

I've already said what my point was there. That accusations of critiques of privilege being political ideology are rather hypocritical. There is no problem with ideology per se, the problem is accusing others of using it while using it yourself.

You seem to acknowledge it exists, but want to excuse it because everybody does it. What am I missing in your perspective?

If we want equality, all of these inadequacies must be challenged. Selectively doing so flies in the face of equality.

 

[Gadarene]

While I don't completely agree with you, I do recognize your lack of animosity and appreciate your humor in how you can phrase things.

"Win" like other words, can be somewhat loaded for victims.
Us whiteys don't get it... not because we are stupid, just because the reasons for terms being loaded is just not part of our experience.

Yeah, no, I'm not buying this. Talking about "we can't win" in a discussion is a commonly used turn of phrase that doesn't mean you think the topic is a game, simply that the discussion is not being conducted in good faith. I don't have time for someone trying to spin that the way they spin everything else. That's exactly the problem I'm talking about when I say we can't win with people like the one I was responding to. (To be clear, I'm not talking about you here).

It's a term of competition, in a discussion where co-operation is critical to success ( a win) for everyone. That's all. I enjoy white privileges, so I feel I can & should be accommodating of the sensitivity.

I see no need to be when only one group is singled out for criticism in this way. We either do this equality thing properly, or not at all. When whites are constantly berated for their racism, but then told that racism can't even exist towards them, there is no reason why whites should play along with such a framework.

I do enjoy your participation here, and your concerns deserve attention.

Cheers, same to you.

 

[Rick Otto]

I've already said what my point was there. That accusations of critiques of privilege being political ideology are rather hypocritical. There is no problem with ideology per se, the problem is accusing others of using it while using it yourself.



If we want equality, all of these inadequacies must be challenged. Selectively doing so flies in the face of equality.

Thank you for repeating yourself. I get it now.
And you are right, we are all "dirty"... I get that, too.
I agree about selectivity and equality too, but isn't this a bit like triage... a necessary evil?
Can't we less dirt encumbered be more accommodating to our more encumbered neighbors? What is the expense? Oh yeah, hypocrisy. More dirt.
Sigh

Maybe I'm more forgiving because I am a bigger hypocrite.

 

[Gadarene]

Thank you for repeating yourself. I get it now.
And you are right, we are all "dirty"... I get that, too.
I agree about selectivity and equality too, but isn't this a bit like triage... a necessary evil?
Can't we less dirt encumbered be more accommodating to our more encumbered neighbors? What is the expense?

I realising I'm answering a question with another question, but that can very easily be flipped around. What is the expense of dropping a harmful framework? I am literally suggesting only that we change an idea. There is no resource cost in that, simply that people let go of their sacred cows and their need to selectively browbeat groups they blame for all their problems. There might be a personal cost in that if nothing else.