White Male Privilege

nokia69 · 10-05-2015 05:25PM

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

Why is masculine on one end of the scale and doormat on the other? What traits are you referring to when you say masculine?

Please try not to use the word feminism or feminists in your answer

maybe women really do like doormats

but the problem is a weak doormat will have very little success with women, because they will fear making the first move, far too "nice" for their own good

Eugene Norman · 10-05-2015 05:27PM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Here's why the theory is nonsense. By this measure, a white man living on the street has it better than a black lawyer because you assume that racism, or the lack thereof is a better indicator of privilege. You have also hardwired the erroneous assumption into your argument that racism is the worst form of discrimination or hardship a person can face. That's not been established by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, let's take a look at homelessness, it's a social malady that affects all ethnicities.

In any case, if you're living on the street you likely have:

1: No education
2: A history of violence
3: A mental illness caused by traumatic head injury (recent studies show that most homeless men - I say men deliberately because homelessness is overwhelmingly a male problem - have been concussed in the past leading to undiagnosed mental conditions)
4: ZERO access to the power structures that whites are alleged to have in abundance over other ethnicities
5: Very little money
6: Very little food
7: No shelter
8: An incredibly high chance of being physically attacked - often for no reason at all
9: Substance abuse issues / alcoholism / drug dependency
10: Criminal record
11: No immediate access to healthcare, or none at all depending on the country you're in

I could go on with this but I'm sure you get the point. Now, if you try to tell me - or anybody with a functioning brain that a white homeless man has privilege, well, I don't think you're honestly evaluating the situation. You have to admit that a white homeless man doesn't enjoy any sort of privilege. The only possible privilege he could enjoy would be a privilege over other members of the same group and even that's a stretch. The conditions of homelessness are so dehumanizing and so awful that it's exceptionally difficult to see how a white homeless person could benefit in any meaningful way ahead of any other homeless ethnicity. But if that were true, it actually serves to show another reason why the theory is absolute bollocks - privilege is not strong enough to leapfrog social groups and that white people only enjoy privilege among their peers, those of an equal social standing. (Nudderwords, it's not nearly as pervasive as some would like to think and it only confers advantages in limited circumstances. And even that is still amazingly unlikely.)

After you do that you can start going to other groups of people and you'll soon see that once you start actually EXAMINING people's lives - privilege, a nice neat theory put together by academics, is pretty much removed from reality.

It's also an incredibly dangerous theory, because it creates division and breeds resentment - the exact kind of conditions where racists, such as this one, are encouraged to flourish openly http://socawlege.com/boston-university-assistant-professor-saida-grundy-attacks-whites-makes-false-statements-on-twitter/

Another problem with the theory is more general, but still applicable; that is, once you start making statements about any ethnicity, you annihilate the individual experiences of human beings living as part of that group. When you start thinking of people as elements of a demographic, as units in an equation, you rob them of their humanity. Once that's achieved, it becomes much easier to take things one step further. Look at what Grundy says in the article I linked to - imagine studying at Boston University and imagine that a paid professor there is saying these things about you. Imagine that there are others, her students, who agree with her. Imagine what those people think of you. They resent you now - because of the colour of your skin.

The theory of white privilege isn't just wrong - it's incredibly dangerous. Some people get on board due to guilt, or because they have good intentions. But others are downright racist and are looking to stoke divisions. Some of them just happen to be university professors.

Great post. The real reason the upper middle classes love "white Privilege" is because if all the whites in any country have privilege then we don't have to delve down into exactly who is privileged amongst the whites.

Eugene Norman · 10-05-2015 05:37PM

And the reason this horse **** comes from America is so we ignore the obvious Yank cultural domination ( yanks of all races) on most people's screens, the economic domination of the world, the military imposition across 100's of bases world wide. This is voted for and largely supported by all Americans regardless of race (unlike the British empire which was largely undemocratic and property based for much of its history). I don't see the black caucus reigning in Israel, or any black senator, Secretary of State, of chief of staff or president opposing the Empire. Quite the opposite looking at bush's war cabinet. I see no difference between left and right. I see no parties opposing empire. I see no parties except two.

Yet it's from that very same empire that ideologies of "white privilege" and "male privilege" largely eminate, which is convenient.

AlphaRed · 10-05-2015 05:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Privilege as used by SJWs, is a bullsh!t concept designed to invalidate somebody's opinions, or justify double standards purely based on their demographic.

Using "white male privilege" to either shut somebody up or justify treating them differently is literally the definition of both racism and sexism. It's discrimination based on nothing other than the demographic somebody happened to be born into, and I for one find it sickening that it's gaining so much traction lately as a legitimate debating tactic.

Some would say, the reason it's finding so much traction lately is down to one thing: money. Another sign of how backward western culture has become, you get paid for being a victim. One example is Anita Sarkeesian. She has made hundreds of thousands of dollars for being a professional victim.

I found this video which basically destroys her in under a minute. In the beginning she says how much she loves videos games, in the second half she says she knows nothing about them and only learned about them to create and issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

Shenshen · 10-05-2015 05:48PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

With all other things being equal this just isn't the case.

White men don't inherently get a better deal in our society (or most Western societies for that matter) when everything else is equal.

Interesting.
What's your explanation for women doing better academically (both in school and at university), but as soon as you look at the workplace they are ridiculously underrepresented at higher managerial levels, and earn less on average?

Surely if the above were true, all the women achieving brilliant academic results would then move on to top positions in the work place?

Cold War Kid · 10-05-2015 05:50PM

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

Why is masculine on one end of the scale and doormat on the other? What traits are you referring to when you say masculine?

Please try not to use the word feminism or feminists in your answer

Yeah, some blame any problems men face whatsoever on feminism - I saw lack of paternity leave being one example of that here one time. :pac: (the fact paternity leave would benefit women too, and therefore is something feminists would clearly be in favour of, seemed to elude them!)
Feminism isn't the cause of all men's problems (some men themsleves are) just like men aren't the cause of all women's problems (some women themselves are).

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 05:51PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.
What's your explanation for women doing better academically (both in school and at university), but as soon as you look at the workplace they are ridiculously underrepresented at higher managerial levels, and earn less on average?

Surely if the above were true, all the women achieving brilliant academic results would then move on to top positions in the work place?

Because business and life depends on a lot more than the stuff they teach you in school.

Shenshen · 10-05-2015 05:52PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Just my observation,women like masculine men not doormats don't think that's a state secret

They do? Wow, thanks for telling me. I'm a woman in my forties and never knew that.

Now, what do I do with my husband who is a sweet, caring, and thankfully very much un-masculine man?

Shenshen · 10-05-2015 05:53PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Because business and life depends on a lot more than the stuff they teach you in school.

So all qualifications are equal, yet a lack of penis is still holding women back somehow.

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 05:56PM

Shenshen wrote: »

So all qualifications are equal, yet a lack of penis is still holding women back somehow.

Lack of knowing how to take risks, lack of life long training in discerning risk, willingness to fail.... learning how to get around things...

Not lack of a penis, lack of being socialised the way males are.

Shenshen · 10-05-2015 05:58PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Lack of knowing how to take risks, lack of life long training in discerning risk, willingness to fail.... learning how to get around things...

Not lack of a penis, lack of being socialised the way males are.

So you would look at a female applicant for a position and automatically assume she doesn't know how to take risks, discern risk, is willing to risk occasional failure or would know how to get around things?

This is getting more and more interesting.

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 06:00PM

Shenshen wrote: »

So you would look at a female applicant for a position and automatically assume she doesn't know how to take risks, discern risk, is willing to risk occasional failure or would know how to get around things?

This is getting more and more interesting.

No.

I was explaining why how well you do in school has a limited amount to do with how well you do in life.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 10-05-2015 06:05PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Lack of knowing how to take risks, lack of life long training in discerning risk, willingness to fail.... learning how to get around things...

Not lack of a penis, lack of being socialised the way males are.

Then why is it that women are socialised in a way that limits their ability to attain goals which are highly valued in nearly every cultural context, such as professional success and acquisition of material wealth?

The common answer (not saying it was the one that you personally were going to give) is that there's something inherent in women that means they don't put value in those goals, that it's nature more than nurture and women don't do those things because they don't want to. In which case it's a kind of chicken-and-egg situation where the goals that men value and achieve are considered more positively than those that women value. Either way it indicates a kind of negative cultural attitude to women and femininity

Yurt2 · 10-05-2015 06:06PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.
What's your explanation for women doing better academically (both in school and at university), but as soon as you look at the workplace they are ridiculously underrepresented at higher managerial levels,

Because females overwhelmingly take humanities courses or opt for nursing or teaching (solid careers that offer salaries around the median) rather than STEM subjects or business related fields which obviously attract more money.

Shenshen wrote: »

and earn less on average?

Gender pay gap has been debunked many times by many different people (ERSI in Ireland for a local study). Women work less hours per year than men and over their career opt out of the labour market for years to raise kids. Removing these factors the gap all but vanishes to something like 2 percent. And women without kids actually out earn males. It's a myth.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 06:07PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.
What's your explanation for women doing better academically (both in school and at university), but as soon as you look at the workplace they are ridiculously underrepresented at higher managerial levels, and earn less on average?

Surely if the above were true, all the women achieving brilliant academic results would then move on to top positions in the work place?

Can I flip this one on its head for a moment?

Why is it that boys falling behind in school is generally celebrated as female achievement and not condemned as male oppression - but women falling behind at work is condemned as female oppression and not celebrated as male achievement?

Boys have been left behind by a school systems which regards girls' typical behavioural traits as the gold standard, and normal masculine behavioural traits as disruptive at best, and a psychological disorder at worst.

Why does this get so little mention in the discourse about gender equality? Boys are more and more likely to be medicated in order to subdue their normal male behaviour, and are failing to thrive in an educational environment which discourages competitive instincts and other male forms of expression.

Why is nothing being done about this? If the genders were flipped it would obviously be "girls being held down by the patriarchy", so why when the situation is reversed and they're doing better, is this not also seen as unfair? Why is it considered a good thing?

In my view this is one of the most glaring, insidious and dangerous examples of feminist hypocrisy and anti-male bias in society, and it's going to completely screw the next generation of men if we don't tackle it soon.

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 06:07PM

Clyde Strong Anger wrote: »

Then why is it that women are socialised in a way that limits their ability to attain goals which are highly valued in nearly every cultural context, such as professional success and acquisition of material wealth?

The common answer (not saying it was the one that you personally were going to give) is that there's something inherent in women that means they don't put value in those goals, that it's nature more than nurture and women don't do those things because they don't want to. In which case it's a kind of chicken-and-egg situation where the goals that men value and achieve are considered more positively than those that women value. Either way it indicates a kind of negative cultural attitude to women and femininity

I think its because of courtship rituals.. men have the advantage there...if you think about them in terms of rehearsal for other things, like business and risk taking.....artistic ambitions....inventions.... entrepreneurships...

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 06:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can I flip this one on its head for a moment?

Why is it that boys falling behind in school is generally celebrated as female achievement and not condemned as male oppression - but women falling behind at work is condemned as female oppression and not celebrated as male achievement?

Boys have been left behind by a school systems which regards girls' typical behavioural traits as the gold standard, and normal masculine behavioural traits as disruptive at best, and a psychological disorder at worst.

Why does this get so little mention in the discourse about gender equality? Boys are more and more likely to be medicated in order to subdue their normal male behaviour, and are failing to thrive in an educational environment which discourages competitive instincts and other male forms of expression.

Why is nothing being done about this? If the genders were flipped it would obviously be "girls being held down by the patriarchy", so why when the situation is reversed and they're doing better, is this not also seen as unfair? Why is it considered a good thing?

In my view this is one of the most glaring, insidious and dangerous examples of feminist hypocrisy and anti-male bias in society, and it's going to completely screw the next generation of men if we don't tackle it soon.

I will turn this on its head again.

School is what is falling behind. School is about 50 years behind the science.

Boys are digital...so even though school is failing them and they are failing school....they will still do better in life.

Your success in school is down to fulfilling the criteria of bueaucrats, obedience, and falling in line with the industrial model. Both Jobs and Gates dropped out of college.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 06:10PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I will turn this on its head again.

School is what is falling behind. School is about 50 years behind the science.

Boys are digital...so even though school is failing them and they are failing school....they will still do better in life.

Can you explain the double standard I've highlighted with regard to achievement and oppression, as anything other than a blatant double standard?

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 06:12PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can you explain the double standard I've highlighted with regard to achievement and oppression, as anything other than a blatant double standard?

I agree with you, the boys are being left behind in education. No doubt about that....

But at the same time, the most privaleged schools in this country are all boys no?

Eugene Norman · 10-05-2015 06:16PM

Shenshen wrote: »

So you would look at a female applicant for a position and automatically assume she doesn't know how to take risks, discern risk, is willing to risk occasional failure or would know how to get around things?

This is getting more and more interesting.

Who really cares. The fact that middle class feminism worries about glass ceilings in industry shows its inherent class bias. The glass ceiling for many males and females in poorer parts of Dublin and the country is not getting into these universities or companies in the first place.

Eugene Norman · 10-05-2015 06:19PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Because females overwhelmingly take humanities courses or opt for nursing or teaching (solid careers that offer salaries around the median) rather than STEM subjects or business related fields which obviously attract more money.

Gender pay gap has been debunked many times by many different people (ERSI in Ireland for a local study). Women work less hours per year than men and over their career opt out of the labour market for years to raise kids. Removing these factors the gap all but vanishes to something like 2 percent. And women without kids actually out earn males. It's a myth.

Even the 15% you get without these alterations is insignificant relative to other gaps, between people born rich and poor, middle or working classes. Between urban and rural. Or differences based on accents etc Even between the tall and short ( worth about €2k an inch in the U.S.).

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 06:26PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I agree with you, the boys are being left behind in education. No doubt about that....

But again, how do you account for the glaring double standard between female oppression when men do better, and legitimate female achievement / superiority when girls do better?

But at the same time, the most privaleged schools in this country are all boys no?

By what criteria? College admissions?

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 06:31PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again, how do you account for the glaring double standard between female oppression when men do better, and legitimate female achievement / superiority when girls do better?

By what criteria? College admissions?

Im not really getting the paradigm you are talking about, in any given context there will be different double standards.

Do better at what? What do you mean by better and how are you measureing it? Financially? Your question is unclear.

AlphaRed · 10-05-2015 06:54PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting.
What's your explanation for women doing better academically (both in school and at university), but as soon as you look at the workplace they are ridiculously underrepresented at higher managerial levels, and earn less on average?

Surely if the above were true, all the women achieving brilliant academic results would then move on to top positions in the work place?

Explaining the gender pay gap

Yurt2 · 10-05-2015 07:14PM

Another interesting thought experiment. Go out in your town or city tonight and count the ratio of male to female rough sleepers. Then ask the question how far society will allow males and female to fall respectively and how much society tolerates male suffering.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 07:23PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Im not really getting the paradigm you are talking about,

Very simply and clearly:

Girls are currently outperforming boys consistently in school, in terms of results right up to and including the leaving cert. Consequently, girls are now more likely to go through to college, all other things being considered.

Men are currently outperforming women in the upper echelons of the corporate world. All other things being considered, they are more likely to sit on corporate boards etc.

Why is it that the former is not considered evidence of discrimination or sexist practices, but the latter is?

Why is it that when girls outperform boys in education it's "long overdue progress", or evidence of girls just being better or harder workers, or evidence of boys having a masculinity issue which causes them to work less (IE it's their own fault), but when men outperform women professionally it's "oppression by the patriarchy"?

Unless one is a hypocrite, the same standard must be applied to both. So either boys being outperformed by girls in education is an example of unfair oppression / sexist practises and must be urgently tackled, or else men outperforming women professionally is fine and is simply an example of men being superior to women. One cannot have one's cake an eat it - either both scenarios are examples of sexism or examples of one gender being superior to the other. My own opinion is that it's very definitely the former, but feminism at best ignores the inequality at school level or at best champions it as "progress".

in any given context there will be different double standards.

Of course there will, unless we take action to eradicate them. Do you think double standards should be tolerated?

Do better at what? What do you mean by better and how are you measureing it? Financially? Your question is unclear.

See above.

zeffabelli · 10-05-2015 07:37PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Very simply and clearly:

Girls are currently outperforming boys consistently in school, in terms of results right up to and including the leaving cert. Consequently, girls are now more likely to go through to college, all other things being considered.

Men are currently outperforming women in the upper echelons of the corporate world. All other things being considered, they are more likely to sit on corporate boards etc.

Why is it that the former is not considered evidence of discrimination or sexist practices, but the latter is?

Why is it that when girls outperform boys in education it's "long overdue progress", or evidence of girls just being better or harder workers, or evidence of boys having a masculinity issue which causes them to work less (IE it's their own fault), but when men outperform women professionally it's "oppression by the patriarchy"?

Unless one is a hypocrite, the same standard must be applied to both. So either boys being outperformed by girls in education is an example of unfair oppression / sexist practises and must be urgently tackled, or else men outperforming women professionally is fine and is simply an example of men being superior to women. One cannot have one's cake an eat it - either both scenarios are examples of sexism or examples of one gender being superior to the other. My own opinion is that it's very definitely the former, but feminism at best ignores the inequality at school level or at best champions it as "progress".

Of course there will, unless we take action to eradicate them. Do you think double standards should be tolerated?

See above.

The answer to education is neither of what you propsose, it's far more complex than that......

Some argue boys should start school a year later... this may have nothing to do with politics but developmental difference.

This equality **** is so off the mark.

Sometimes yes it is appropriate to let one chld watch tv and another not watch tv, it's all context dependent.

What is your education going to mean if you are left with the childcare... you assume that this is maternal rights...no it's maternal obligation couched as a right.

I have an advanced degree but severely struggle to find affordable childcare with no support from dad or family. So I can basically wipe my ass with my education.

jobbridge4life · 10-05-2015 07:40PM

This thread is pathetic. Instead of a worthwhile conversation on 'privilege' we have the same tired set of men virtually tripping up over themselves to demonstrate how bad men have it in society.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 07:43PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

The answer to education is neither of what you propsose, it's far more complex than that...…

Perhaps, but again you're not addressing the double standard with regard to one being seen as discrimination and one being seen as progress. Either both are discrimination, or both are progress.

Some argue boys should start school a year later... this may have nothing to do with politics but developmental difference.

Sure, that's something to be looked at. I'd argue that male behaviour is vilified in mixed schools and this must be addressed, but again do you accept the double standard with regard to girls racing ahead academically being somehow seen as a good thing, but men being ahead in professionally being seen as a bad thing?

This equality **** is so off the mark.

Why?

Sometimes yes it is appropriate to let one chld watch tv and another not watch tv, it's all context dependent.

All other things being equal?

What is your education going to mean if you are left with the childcare... you assume that this is maternal rights...no it's maternal obligation couched as a right.

I have an advanced degree but severely struggle to find affordable childcare with no support from dad or family. So I can basically wipe my ass with my education.

Eh… Not sure how that's relevant to anything I said, although I agree that this should also be equalised urgently. But you still haven't addressed the double standard of progress vs discrimination.

hatrickpatrick · 10-05-2015 07:44PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This thread is pathetic. Instead of a worthwhile conversation on 'privilege' we have the same tired set of men virtually tripping up over themselves to demonstrate how bad men have it in society.

This wouldn't happen if we didn't constantly have it rammed down our throats that we have it better and should feel bad about it, when it's demonstrable that this is false.

White Male Privilege

Comments