HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm surprised how many DU...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:19 PM

 

I'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?

440 replies, 30723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 440 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm surprised how many DU'ers think aknowledging white male privilege is somehow bigoted (Original post)
MightyMopar Jan 2013 OP
sibelian Jan 2013 #1
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #4
Kurska Jan 2013 #56
Bradical79 Jan 2013 #63
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #99
Cary Jan 2013 #281
On the Road Jan 2013 #380
annabanana Jan 2013 #5
bettyellen Jan 2013 #11
tblue Jan 2013 #152
bettyellen Jan 2013 #162
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #172
bettyellen Jan 2013 #183
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #188
bettyellen Jan 2013 #191
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #193
bettyellen Jan 2013 #195
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #202
bettyellen Jan 2013 #208
gollygee Jan 2013 #211
bettyellen Jan 2013 #218
gollygee Jan 2013 #220
Nikia Jan 2013 #200
bettyellen Jan 2013 #205
CreekDog Jan 2013 #248
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #258
CreekDog Jan 2013 #269
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #273
CreekDog Jan 2013 #274
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #286
CreekDog Jan 2013 #288
CreekDog Jan 2013 #305
gollygee Jan 2013 #212
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #228
Walk away Jan 2013 #352
BainsBane Jan 2013 #403
Helen Reddy Jan 2013 #196
bettyellen Jan 2013 #199
Helen Reddy Jan 2013 #203
crazyrayray Jan 2013 #383
CreekDog Jan 2013 #239
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #240
CreekDog Jan 2013 #241
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #249
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #265
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #271
yardwork Jan 2013 #338
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #341
BainsBane Jan 2013 #399
Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #22
bayareamike Jan 2013 #28
sibelian Jan 2013 #92
MKITEM Jan 2013 #108
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #109
MKITEM Jan 2013 #110
dsc Jan 2013 #135
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #216
treestar Jan 2013 #119
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #165
Romulox Jan 2013 #325
billh58 Jan 2013 #144
Romulox Jan 2013 #295
billh58 Jan 2013 #322
Romulox Jan 2013 #323
billh58 Jan 2013 #335
Romulox Jan 2013 #339
billh58 Jan 2013 #347
Romulox Jan 2013 #350
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #432
sibelian Jan 2013 #315
iiibbb Jan 2013 #127
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #175
Warpy Jan 2013 #12
sibelian Jan 2013 #93
Sheldon Cooper Jan 2013 #14
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #33
CreekDog Jan 2013 #61
Recursion Jan 2013 #73
sibelian Jan 2013 #94
treestar Jan 2013 #116
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #181
sibelian Jan 2013 #317
Orrex Jan 2013 #351
sibelian Jan 2013 #367
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #428
Deep13 Jan 2013 #304
BainsBane Jan 2013 #397
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #2
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #7
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #44
sibelian Jan 2013 #421
seabeyond Jan 2013 #3
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #6
seabeyond Jan 2013 #8
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #100
Deep13 Jan 2013 #307
seabeyond Jan 2013 #320
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #381
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #391
The Straight Story Jan 2013 #9
gollygee Jan 2013 #10
ismnotwasm Jan 2013 #13
Swamp Lover Jan 2013 #39
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #101
MKITEM Jan 2013 #111
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #174
sibelian Jan 2013 #314
gollygee Jan 2013 #319
sibelian Jan 2013 #374
gollygee Jan 2013 #377
sibelian Jan 2013 #425
gollygee Jan 2013 #430
sibelian Jan 2013 #316
sibelian Jan 2013 #420
gollygee Jan 2013 #431
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #19
smirkymonkey Jan 2013 #102
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #279
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #34
madinmaryland Jan 2013 #38
CreekDog Jan 2013 #82
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #207
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #369
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #15
seabeyond Jan 2013 #16
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2013 #31
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #48
seabeyond Jan 2013 #62
theKed Jan 2013 #124
seabeyond Jan 2013 #128
theKed Jan 2013 #138
seabeyond Jan 2013 #141
theKed Jan 2013 #147
seabeyond Jan 2013 #149
theKed Jan 2013 #156
seabeyond Jan 2013 #159
theKed Jan 2013 #166
seabeyond Jan 2013 #186
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #285
zazen Jan 2013 #95
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #21
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #35
Whisp Jan 2013 #65
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #75
Whisp Jan 2013 #81
Scootaloo Jan 2013 #308
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #17
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #18
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #20
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #27
bench scientist Jan 2013 #250
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #289
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #23
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #29
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #43
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #47
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #52
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #60
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #66
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #176
yardwork Jan 2013 #407
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #409
yardwork Jan 2013 #411
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #412
yardwork Jan 2013 #413
billh58 Jan 2013 #30
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #41
Lex Jan 2013 #376
raccoon Jan 2013 #103
sibelian Jan 2013 #378
billh58 Jan 2013 #385
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #386
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #37
Squinch Jan 2013 #74
GObamaGO Jan 2013 #372
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #373
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #24
2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #26
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #32
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #71
RobertEarl Jan 2013 #83
theKed Jan 2013 #130
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #221
sibelian Jan 2013 #423
kelliekat44 Jan 2013 #25
Quantess Jan 2013 #36
patrice Jan 2013 #42
patrice Jan 2013 #40
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #45
billh58 Jan 2013 #50
Squinch Jan 2013 #77
billh58 Jan 2013 #90
Moses2SandyKoufax Jan 2013 #53
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #194
Skittles Jan 2013 #426
patrice Jan 2013 #46
Squinch Jan 2013 #80
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #49
lunasun Jan 2013 #57
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #68
Posteritatis Jan 2013 #72
JI7 Jan 2013 #86
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #87
JI7 Jan 2013 #88
Kurska Jan 2013 #51
maindawg Jan 2013 #54
brewens Jan 2013 #55
Bradical79 Jan 2013 #58
mike dub Jan 2013 #59
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #70
krhines Jan 2013 #64
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #67
seabeyond Jan 2013 #120
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #178
krhines Jan 2013 #318
Number23 Jan 2013 #222
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #69
Orrex Jan 2013 #161
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #303
Orrex Jan 2013 #321
Romulox Jan 2013 #326
Orrex Jan 2013 #348
Romulox Jan 2013 #356
Orrex Jan 2013 #357
Romulox Jan 2013 #358
Orrex Jan 2013 #359
Romulox Jan 2013 #360
Orrex Jan 2013 #361
Romulox Jan 2013 #362
Orrex Jan 2013 #364
Hatchling Jan 2013 #434
Romulox Jan 2013 #440
Recursion Jan 2013 #76
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #79
JI7 Jan 2013 #89
Romulox Jan 2013 #327
gollygee Jan 2013 #105
Silent3 Jan 2013 #78
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #84
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #85
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #91
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #97
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #96
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2013 #98
pecwae Jan 2013 #104
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #106
pecwae Jan 2013 #112
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #113
pecwae Jan 2013 #114
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #107
frustrated_lefty Jan 2013 #134
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #143
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #146
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #148
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #150
frustrated_lefty Jan 2013 #155
datasuspect Jan 2013 #117
sibelian Jan 2013 #375
slackmaster Jan 2013 #115
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #121
slackmaster Jan 2013 #122
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #125
slackmaster Jan 2013 #126
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #223
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #224
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #118
slackmaster Jan 2013 #123
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #129
NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #131
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #132
polly7 Jan 2013 #133
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #136
polly7 Jan 2013 #137
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #139
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #214
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #227
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #225
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #229
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #235
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #243
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #254
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #292
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #299
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #301
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #331
slackmaster Jan 2013 #334
gollygee Jan 2013 #164
NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #167
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #171
slackmaster Jan 2013 #336
slackmaster Jan 2013 #333
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #384
slackmaster Jan 2013 #388
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #238
Hippo_Tron Jan 2013 #298
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #311
Romulox Jan 2013 #332
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #368
sibelian Jan 2013 #422
valerief Jan 2013 #140
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #142
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #226
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #293
seabeyond Jan 2013 #189
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #145
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #151
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #154
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #157
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #160
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #170
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #337
Flashmann Jan 2013 #153
Vinnie From Indy Jan 2013 #158
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #163
Vinnie From Indy Jan 2013 #168
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #169
Vinnie From Indy Jan 2013 #179
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #184
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #190
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #177
Vinnie From Indy Jan 2013 #182
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #187
im a Belieber Jan 2013 #173
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #180
Throd Jan 2013 #209
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #217
Throd Jan 2013 #185
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #192
seabeyond Jan 2013 #198
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #266
bettyellen Jan 2013 #282
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #392
bettyellen Jan 2013 #395
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #401
bettyellen Jan 2013 #405
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #416
bettyellen Jan 2013 #436
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #439
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #204
seabeyond Jan 2013 #197
bettyellen Jan 2013 #230
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #231
bettyellen Jan 2013 #233
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #234
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #201
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #213
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #206
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #252
Romulox Jan 2013 #346
Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #210
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #215
Number23 Jan 2013 #219
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #232
Number23 Jan 2013 #242
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #244
Number23 Jan 2013 #253
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #255
Number23 Jan 2013 #260
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #267
Number23 Jan 2013 #272
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #276
Number23 Jan 2013 #277
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #278
Number23 Jan 2013 #280
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #297
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #263
Number23 Jan 2013 #268
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #270
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #294
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #290
Number23 Jan 2013 #312
billh58 Jan 2013 #400
dexter sinister Jan 2013 #236
billh58 Jan 2013 #324
dexter sinister Jan 2013 #371
billh58 Jan 2013 #398
dexter sinister Jan 2013 #437
cbrer Jan 2013 #237
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #246
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #251
cbrer Jan 2013 #257
Number23 Jan 2013 #264
cbrer Jan 2013 #283
Number23 Jan 2013 #284
JReed Jan 2013 #245
SidDithers Jan 2013 #261
Number23 Jan 2013 #275
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #247
Number23 Jan 2013 #256
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #262
Lil Missy Jan 2013 #259
Chathamization Jan 2013 #287
thucythucy Jan 2013 #291
Romulox Jan 2013 #296
billh58 Jan 2013 #328
Romulox Jan 2013 #330
billh58 Jan 2013 #342
Romulox Jan 2013 #345
billh58 Jan 2013 #349
thucythucy Jan 2013 #343
Romulox Jan 2013 #344
thucythucy Jan 2013 #353
Romulox Jan 2013 #354
thucythucy Jan 2013 #366
Romulox Jan 2013 #355
lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #329
Hippo_Tron Jan 2013 #300
Deep13 Jan 2013 #302
Skittles Jan 2013 #306
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #309
Skittles Jan 2013 #310
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #340
sylvi Jan 2013 #313
crazyrayray Jan 2013 #387
sylvi Jan 2013 #393
jtuck004 Jan 2013 #363
Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #419
jtuck004 Jan 2013 #424
jtuck004 Jan 2013 #427
Bonobo Jan 2013 #438
Taverner Jan 2013 #365
BWC Jan 2013 #370
Lex Jan 2013 #379
OccupyManny Jan 2013 #382
4 t 4 Jan 2013 #390
yurbud Jan 2013 #389
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #394
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #402
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #406
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #410
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #408
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #414
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #415
ElboRuum Jan 2013 #417
MightyMopar Jan 2013 #418
billh58 Jan 2013 #404
Taverner Jan 2013 #435
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #396
PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #429
billh58 Jan 2013 #433

Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:22 PM

1. No.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:26 PM

4. Many white men are still doing nasty things and then when they are called it, it's "reverse racism"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:10 PM

56. Many aren't. What is your point?

Isn't it especially unfair to those that don't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:31 PM

63. No link was made between the nasty things occurring and any nasty white men.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:39 AM

99. There is no such thing as reverse racism

Just as there is no such thing as reverse sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:03 PM

281. If you think about the term "reverse racism" shouldn't that really mean...

just being nice to people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #99)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:05 PM

380. That Idea, of Course,

allows you to practice without feeling a sense of conflict or hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:26 PM

5. You misinterpret.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:35 PM

11. yep. i think it's worse now since times are tougher for everyone- men compare their fortunes to

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:53 PM

152. But it has ALWAYS been that way

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #152)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:12 PM

162. yes, I'm just saying the current recession is causing a spike in resentment and fear.

But, it is always this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:57 PM

172. No. Times aren't tougher for everyone.





Split demographics any way you want and the only ones who earn less than their parents are men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #172)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:28 PM

183. HA HA, the baseline on this chart was when women made 55% of what men did for same job

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #183)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:07 PM

188. No. My post seems to say that your premise is hogwash.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #188)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:49 PM

191. you're not going to get any sympathy when you're ignoring the real issue of stagnation of wages

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #191)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:57 PM

193. Entitlement?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #193)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:12 PM

195. So, you have issues with some men making less money than some women. Too fucking bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #195)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:46 PM

202. Don't let me interrupt. You were about to make some sort of point about my privilege, no doubt. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #202)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:17 PM

208. because your under performing sons are exceptions that prove the rule?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #208)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:58 PM

211. I stay at home with my kids

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #211)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:33 PM

218. Lucky! But of course you know both parents working is the norm in America now

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #218)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:39 PM

220. Yeah I'm aware of that

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #193)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:42 PM

200. My husband stays home with our little children

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nikia (Reply #200)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:52 PM

205. yep, leaping from women earning more money straight to custody battles is an odd leap!!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #205)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:23 PM

248. Here's Jeffy posting that women should pay MORE for health insurance than men

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=896802

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #248)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:29 PM

258. Thanks for providing my words which say exactly the OPPOSITE of what you attribute to me.

Can you at least read the stuff you cut and paste? Is that too taxing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #258)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:36 PM

269. you advocate policies like FDR for MEN and policies like Rush Limbaugh when it comes to women

that's not progressive.

that's the enemy of progressive policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #269)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:45 PM

273. I think that gender should not be a rating criteria for life and auto insurance.

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #273)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:49 PM

274. No, you think gender should be a rating factor when it COSTS WOMEN MORE

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #274)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:10 PM

286. You know what I believe despite the fact that I say the exact opposite.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #286)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:16 PM

288. what makes your posts and positions so MORALLY BANKRUPT is that you oppose things that help women

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #286)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:00 AM

305. that's what makes you so transparently hypocritical!!! you support anything that saves men money

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nikia (Reply #200)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:59 PM

212. And why the assumption that the stress of being a stay-at-home dad would cause divorce

in an apparent comparison to stay-at-home moms. Is staying at home more stressful for dads than moms? Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #212)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:21 PM

228. Being a stay at home dad isn't stressful at all.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #193)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:29 PM

352. My Sister in Law has been the bread winner in her family for twentyfive years...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #193)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:03 PM

403. revenge?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #191)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:20 PM

196. Thank you.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Reddy (Reply #196)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:30 PM

199. Hear me ROAR!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #199)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:47 PM

203. *wink and a *nod n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #183)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:11 PM

383. Bogus

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #172)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:58 PM

239. what's the sound of one hand clapping?

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #239)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:07 PM

240. Good! Then you'll be glad to know you've arrived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #240)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:11 PM

241. then why did you just post a graph saying it's not a myth?



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #241)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:23 PM

249. You could try reading the links to educate yourself.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #172)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:34 PM

265. Wow, according to your graph, women still make a LOT LESS

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #265)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:42 PM

271. If everyone worked the same hours in the same careers, that might hold some logic.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #271)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:07 AM

338. That's not true, as you've been shown over and over again.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #338)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:10 AM

341. The 7% is attributable to the fact that AAUW is doing the study.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #172)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 08:44 PM

399. women earn less than men

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:52 PM

22. Bingo Anna!

Prejudice and privlege runs so deep people aren't even AWARE of it..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:24 PM

28. The discussion over privilege is a sticky one

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:27 AM

92. "I think us white guys need to man up and acknowledge this centuries old offense."


"This is not about you being blamed for what other white guys have done."

:-/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:33 AM

108. This is junk.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MKITEM (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:35 AM

109. Any black landowners at the time? We know what they did to Native American landholders in Georgia.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:39 AM

110. There were many free men in colonial times.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:38 PM

135. there were many

but when white male non property owners got their right to vote black property owners often ended up losing theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:20 PM

216. And Mexican landowners who ended up on the north side of the new border...

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MKITEM (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:19 AM

119. That eventually went away

white men were the first to get equality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:22 PM

165. True, but then some groups of white men were still excluded > Irish need not apply

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:48 AM

325. We have the most unequal society in the developed world. How did men "get" equality? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MKITEM (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:20 PM

144. Please explain that to

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #144)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:11 AM

295. Non landing owning people didn't own slaves. Think this through a bit, would you?

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.


Does this make sense to you, in retrospect? It shouldn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #295)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:53 AM

322. Yes, it does make sense

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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #322)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:41 AM

323. This is nonsense. Sharecroppers (non landing owning agricultural workers) didn't own slaves.

What is to be gained by falsifying history in order to deflect blame from slaveowners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #323)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:04 AM

335. Now where did I say "sharecroppers?"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #335)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:08 AM

339. Study history. "Sharecroppers" were what non-land owning agricultural workers were called.

It was a direct outgrowth to the peonage system of feudal Europe.

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.


Read a history book. Your argument is fabricated whole-cloth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #339)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:34 AM

347. Dear Romulox,

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #347)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:11 PM

350. I mentioned neither your education nor intellect. I mention your *fabricated history*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #322)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:33 AM

432. You used the word "likely", bill. I think"on occasion" used above is much more accurate.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MKITEM (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:59 AM

315. Thank you.

I have no idea why this idiotic idea still permeates the left. It shoud have died decades ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:10 PM

127. Statistically maybe, and there are a bunch of things that are not easier for me because of

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:06 PM

175. Life is easier because I'm white.

In no way does being a man make life easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:48 PM

12. That's not what the OP is saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:33 AM

93. Oh, give it a rest, it's exactly what they're saying...


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:57 PM

14. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:28 PM

33. Post 26 applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:27 PM

61. change it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:56 PM

73. Recognize it. Racism and sexism aren't individual moral flaws; they're roles we play in a system

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:36 AM

94. Yeah, I've heard it. All of it.


Repeatedly. I really don't think it's me that has to "shut the fuck up for five minutes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:17 AM

116. No

That's not the point. No one says feel guilty - it is just that you don't have to deal with prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:27 PM

181. No bad...responsible to help make the necessary changes.

and open to listening to the reasons why those who look different than us might have a problem with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #181)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:07 AM

317. No. There is no "privilege".


Living an ordinary life free from interference is not a privilege it is a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #317)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:28 PM

351. Then you should be even more upset about it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #351)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:28 PM

367. .... what on EARTH.... ?

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #367)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:17 AM

428. You should watch this.



Everyone should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:58 AM

304. You completely misunderstand the problem.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 08:37 PM

397. Quit whining

about how they are the targets of racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:23 PM

2. Are there people who don't think it exists? It's almost the entire basis of christian conservatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:29 PM

7. Lots of people deny it, generally those who benefit from it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:47 PM

44. Annnd this thread's certainly joined the others. Ugh. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:27 AM

421. There is no "white male privilege".


It doesn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:24 PM

3. " man up" this would also be misandrist. equal to misogyny. per some men on du.

so you are informed.

thank you for your post. as a white person, not male, but white, i understand the privilege i have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:27 PM

6. I should have used different language such as "face up"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:30 PM

8. lol, ass up? i dunno. though, man up should not be a lot different from be a man.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:55 AM

100. Both are a form of stereotyping

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:04 AM

307. One of the most interesting developments in recent feminist scholarship...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #307)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:46 AM

320. yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #307)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:06 PM

381. Fantastic post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #307)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:38 PM

391. Agree.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:31 PM

9. Which white guys? Gays? Handicap? The poor?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:35 PM

10. You don't understand how privilege works

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:55 PM

13. 1+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:37 PM

39. Inaccurate idiocy.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swamp Lover (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:31 AM

101. The concept isn't idiocy, just the way it's used sometimes

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:42 AM

111. B.S.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:02 PM

174. Thank you; someone who gets it

 

N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:58 AM

314. No. It is not "privilege."


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #314)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:00 AM

319. It's kind of a yin/yang thing

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #319)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:58 PM

374. No. It is not a "yin/ying" thing.


Ordinary living is not an "advantage".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #374)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:00 PM

377. Yes, it is a "yin/yang" thing

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #377)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 03:27 AM

425. No. The use of the term "white male privilege" has nothing to do with acknowledging anything.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #425)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:13 AM

430. It doesn't mean someone else has GONE up

just that in comparison someone else IS up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:06 AM

316. No. There is no "privilege".


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:26 AM

420. No. White people have no "privileges".


There is "privilege". There is no "advantage". Being white has no level of "privilege" associated with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #420)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:13 AM

431. Do you think saying it more often

makes you less wrong? I know people don't like to acknowledge it, but it's there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:26 PM

19. here you go...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:51 AM

102. Love that! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:01 PM

279. I wish this was an OP.

+trillions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

34. Post 26 applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:32 PM

38. Whooosh! Don't you have some cigarette smokers rights to defend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:07 PM

82. ask yourself whether being poor, gay, disabled, etc. would be easier or harder if not white

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:56 PM

207. The Village People.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:50 PM

369. Look at it this way

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:58 PM

15. YES. Take this privileged white male, for example.



He will simply never be able to comprehend the horror of being Halle Berry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:00 PM

16. yes. he can drive his old beat up car and not be pulled over by police while a black man driving

50k car will be pulled over, searched, and detained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:26 PM

31. I don't know if meth is a problem where you live,

but a guy who looked like that would get pulled over every third block around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:58 PM

48. If you're talking about cops pulling people over, the relevant privilege is "attractive female",

in terms of avoiding getting a ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:29 PM

62. yes. an attractive white female would get passes. as do my husband, oldest brother and father.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:06 PM

124. Of course

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:13 PM

128. "I'm not diminishing female rape at all". yes. you are.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:43 PM

138. I think I understand

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #138)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:57 PM

141. again, yes, another post to ignore white male privilege. nothing more.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #141)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:30 PM

147. Apology accepted?

Carry on with your outrage then, reality be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #147)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:39 PM

149. now you project outrage. do you ever have an honest debate, or this just your style, cause it does

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:04 PM

156. Who was denying white male privilege?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #156)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:08 PM

159. now... this would be just more bullshit.

really... let it go. derailing fails.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #159)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:30 PM

166. Just following the track you laid down.

It actually cannot possibly be bullshit, because that is exactly what I said.

As you were!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #166)


Response to theKed (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:10 PM

285. I know men can get raped too, but I do not know the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:56 AM

95. um, have you never heard of a "pu**y check?"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:36 PM

21. I bet that guy wouldn't trade places with Halle Berry if you asked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

35. Post 26 applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:34 PM

65. I really don't think that particular white guy is the subject

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:00 PM

75. OK. For the sake of fairness let me post a picture of a black dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:06 PM

81. sure is handsome, and smart too I bet.

who is this guy? Have his ancestors been making the rules for the rest of us for centuries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:06 AM

308. Not surprised to see the point woosh over your head...

But then, you ducked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:08 PM

17. This is literally the only place I've ever run across the meme that discussing privilege is bigoted.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:20 PM

18. It's actually a pretty common reaction

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:27 PM

20. It's strange, since I know most if not all DUers would agree that the concept

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%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:22 PM

27. The right has done a very good job messaging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:23 PM

250. me too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:22 PM

289. Sadly, in my hometown,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:52 PM

23. Yeah, and it is time to do this

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:25 PM

29. Wot?

Are you saying that only privileged white males could have effected these beneficial changes for society?



If so, enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:40 PM

43. No.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:54 PM

47. White males have done many good things in this country

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:03 PM

52. My opinion

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:27 PM

60. "...the affirmative action the wm embraced...."

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:36 PM

66. Where did I do that?

"......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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:07 PM

176. Sorry if I misread you; given your "point" I'm not sure I did.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:41 PM

407. White men are the reason that America and Europe are great?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #407)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:00 PM

409. Did I write that? No

Why would you say that is what I am saying?

You do not understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #409)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:05 PM

411. Spell it out for me, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #411)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:07 PM

412. Read my post.

I'm done here. See you in meta? Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #412)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:11 PM

413. Snort. Are you going to start a thread complaining about my post in Meta?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:26 PM

30. Well, isn't that special...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:37 PM

41. Ok here is the contrary view

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:59 PM

376. Yes, I agree. The privileged white male "has been very, very for society."

I think you accidentally the privileged white male, like this one:









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:39 AM

103. Thank you! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:03 PM

378. IT. IS. NOT. "PRIVILEGE".


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #378)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:14 PM

385. Are you talking about the "right" of

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?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sibelian (Reply #378)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:14 PM

386. "It is not an ADVANTAGE to live in the absence of oppression."

Um, what. Having a working leg is an advantage over having a broken leg, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:30 PM

37. Post 26 applies. And then some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:57 PM

74. The privileged white male has been very very good for the privileged white male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:43 PM

372. W. T. F.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GObamaGO (Reply #372)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:50 PM

373. Maybe, maybe not, and no i did not.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:15 PM

24. I know I am a beneficiary of White Male Privilege

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:21 PM

26. ^^^ Does not get it and never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:27 PM

32. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:47 PM

71. Time to quit trying then, I suppose

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:07 PM

83. +1

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:17 PM

130. Your last line

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:47 PM

221. HELLO??? ANYBODY HOME?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:40 AM

423. Good for you.


Doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with you to me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:16 PM

25. That's part of the privilege...not having to own up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:29 PM

36. No, this is a problem democrats are facing.

White privilege has little to do with it, when you suddenly have fewer opportunities in life.

Chew on that for a minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:38 PM

42. Agreed! strongly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:37 PM

40. If we should treat every person as an individual, we should treat EVERY person as an individual.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

45. White male privileges for those who don't know what they are...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:01 PM

50. But, but

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:02 PM

77. RIght. Cause that's where we excel. In "backing." Can I steal that post 26 line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:37 AM

90. Of course you can

but I don't believe that I wrote post #26...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:05 PM

53. It also means your 17 year old white son can walk from the 7-11, through his neighborhood,

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moses2SandyKoufax (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:59 PM

194. Male privilege doesn't seem to work too well for him, does it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #194)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:33 AM

426. only because it went viral

otherwise that bastard would have walked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

46. White males have received the most privilege from ECONOMIC discrimination, because they used to

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:06 PM

80. And we see that in the equal number of male and female executives at the top of companies...

....oh... wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:00 PM

49. Wouldn't it be great if we could move beyond this kind of privilege?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:14 PM

57. he is half white

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:45 PM

68. Are you serious???

Seriously, what changed in our culture just based on Obama being president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:53 PM

72. You obviously haven't been paying attention the last several years. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:31 PM

86. do you think the Black Man could have been President if he was like Bush ?

look at how great Obama had to be to get there.

and then look at people like Bush, Quayle, Reagan etc .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #86)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:36 PM

87. Well, Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court.

And he is not exactly "great".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #87)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:59 PM

88. Clarence THomas is a Token, they would put him before they put a qualified black person

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:02 PM

51. If you'd entertain a question

Is it in your opinion possible to be racist against a white person? Or sexist against a male?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:06 PM

54. rediculess

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. I am ordinary. My disability is my utter lack of cogent pertictobility. But dont pity me, pity my father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:08 PM

55. It's just like the Christians that love to be persecuted. Now that white guys like myself, don't

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:20 PM

58. Depends on if the argument is backed up in some way

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:23 PM

59. White male, here ... no offense taken

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike dub (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:46 PM

70. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:32 PM

64. Louis CK sums this up nicely

"If you're white and you don't admit its an advantage, then you're an asshole!"

&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

I'm on phone so I don't know if this will show up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:38 PM

67. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:25 AM

120. had 15 yr old white son listen.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:14 PM

178. Love this!!!!

 

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!!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mdterp01 (Reply #178)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 04:16 AM

318. I've seen that

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")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krhines (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

222. I. LOVE. THIS

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:46 PM

69. I've known my share of white males

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:09 PM

161. I tried to have that discussion once on DU2

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #161)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:57 AM

303. Bingo.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #303)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:48 AM

321. Part of the difficulty IMO is in the framing

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #161)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:50 AM

326. That argument is an attempt to foreclose discussion of inequality and class:

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #326)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:34 AM

348. I'm sorry, but I think that I'm not understanding you.

Can you clarify your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #348)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:28 PM

356. I'm sorry. On re-read I can see my post is anything but clear.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #356)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:47 PM

357. Thanks for the clarification

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #357)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:58 PM

358. I once heard Chris Rock quip that no white man would trade places with him.

That's so obviously wrong that it's hard for me to believe that he believes it.

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.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #358)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:22 PM

359. Sure, but that's not the point

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.

I once heard Chris Rock quip that no white man would trade places with him.

That's so obviously wrong that it's hard for me to believe that he believes it.
I'm not convinced that he believes it, either. It strikes me more as comic hyperbole than as a serious assertion.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #359)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:30 PM

360. Forgive me, but Chris Rock having a choice of where he wants to live is an example of...

"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.

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 traded places with a non-white person at our same socio-economic level.


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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #360)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:44 PM

361. You seem very eager to have one discussion to the exclusion of all else

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.

Right. But we have to totally ignore the effect on class and wealth on our lives for the point to make sense.
Not really, because they're true simultaneously. Sufficient wealth will afford a black man a level of privilege unattainable by a lower-income white male, but as a systemic whole the demographically average white man enjoys greater privilege than does a non-white man in a nominally equivalent socio-economic position.

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.
In my eight or so years on this forum, I have never heard any DUer suggest that wealth privilege doesn't exist. Do you encounter that sentiment often? Please point it out to me, and I will be very happy to address the matter to the deluded soul who's making that assertion.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #361)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:00 PM

362. I thought I was having a civil discussion (I originally thought I was agreeing with you, even!)

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.

Not really, because they're true simultaneously. Sufficient wealth will afford a black man a level of privilege unattainable by a lower-income white male, but as a systemic whole the demographically average white man enjoys greater privilege than does a non-white man in a nominally equivalent socio-economic position.


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.

In my eight or so years on this forum, I have never heard any DUer suggest that wealth privilege doesn't exist. Do you encounter that sentiment often? Please point it out to me, and I will be very happy to address the matter to the deluded soul who's making that assertion.

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!

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.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #362)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

364. I didn't intend to insult you, but if I did so then I apologize

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:
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!

You also wrote:
Chris Rock is fabulously wealthy, and that allows him to do things that being a poor white man would never do.
Okay, but can you understand how a reader might see this as a comparison between fabulously wealthy Chris Rock and an "anonymous poor white man?" After all, we were speaking specifically of Rock himself, and you then referred to a unnamed "poor white man" in the more general sense, distinguishing what Rock can do from what a poor white man can't do? Can you accept that this suggests a comparison between the two, and that you do apparently refer to an "anonymous poor white man?"

I specifically said something different from this. "One or the other" certainly isn't a quote from my posts, nor even a paraphrase.
Perhaps not a paraphrase, but neither is it a deliberate misrepresentation. I was summarizing what I took to be your intent, since you repeatedly diminished the issue of race/gender-based privilege in favor of class-based privilege. It seemed, in your posts at least, that one privilege wholly trumps the other, which implied a "one or the other" formulation. If that's not the case, then let us discuss both; I merely suggest that a discussion about class-privilege might be better served by starting another thread.

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.
I wasn't aware that we'd gotten to that point, but if you feel that I've insulted you, then I don't fault you for ending the discussion. My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #356)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:52 PM

434. Oh, for FFS!

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 .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hatchling (Reply #434)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:38 AM

440. Nonsense. Class privilege is NOT "white male privilege". The conflation is erroneous, and

quite purposeful.

The fact a small percentage of minorities are on the high side of class prilege does not negate that


"Negate" is your word. You, like many, get angry at the mere mention of class privilege. Ask yourself why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:00 PM

76. White privilege is the ability to say "I don't see color"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:04 PM

79. I think the key thing is to judge people by the content of their character,

not the color of their skin. Not an original approach, I know, but a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:27 AM

89. and people do that more for White Males than for other groups

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:51 AM

327. Irony is not dead. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:58 AM

105. The myth of color blindness

http://www.timwise.org/2003/01/misreading-the-dream-color-blindness-and-the-distortion-of-martin-luther-king-jr/

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:03 PM

78. My sister (white, but female) exhibits a lot of what is often attributed...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:14 PM

84. If you are referring to the gun thread that concerned WMP, then your accusation is off.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:16 PM

85. I am not

Outside of Academia this is not a conversation normally held. It should, it's real...but it's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:23 AM

91. You are conflating two different things. One exists, the other does not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:12 AM

97. What's interesting is those that argue otherwise can't seem to do so without such conflations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:58 AM

96. I'll be happy to accept responsibility for my unearned privilege if you promise to never

 

write the words "man up" again.

Deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:15 AM

98. FFS... "I posted a gun thread and it didn't work out like I thought it would."

That would be a more apt title for THIS thread.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:13 AM

104. Spot on.

I read the thread you refer to and you've called it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecwae (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:29 AM

106. Yeah, it went so bad it got 29 recs!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #106)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:03 AM

112. Do you want a cookie? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecwae (Reply #112)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:09 AM

113. Got bunch of attaboys in my e-mail box

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #113)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:10 AM

114. Thrilled for you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:30 AM

107. What wasn't factual? And what is it you're progressive about?

 

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:38 PM

134. thoughts

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frustrated_lefty (Reply #134)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:09 PM

143. I'm making the case that rural white gun owners are stifling meaningful gun regulations

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:29 PM

146. More laws!

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #146)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:31 PM

148. Fund the ATF and get it a director! Rural whites political allies in Congress stifle enforcement

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #148)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:48 PM

150. And this will get people to "start snitchin"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:03 PM

155. You think so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:17 AM

117. **LOOK AT MEEEEE!!!!!!**

 

sheesh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:59 PM

375. Yer not kiddin'.


Pretty damn silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:15 AM

115. I regard my WMP as a reasonable reparation for my physical handicaps and circumstances of my birth

 

I'd gladly be black and have perfect vision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #115)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:01 PM

121. With 10 percent of black men in prison, do you really want to challenge that lottery?

 

Besides God/nature gave you those physical handicaps not a racist society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:04 PM

122. Very few of them are in prison simply for being black. Most people in prison are indeed criminals.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:07 PM

126. I didn't say that people NEVER get railroaded by the justice system

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:55 PM

223. Tilts it a hell of a lot more than a bit.

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #121)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:10 PM

224. Black men in prison are there primarily because they're men.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:18 AM

118. It is because people mistakenly think that there is only one definition for privilege

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:05 PM

123. Not getting fucked with as much by the police or ignored by bartenders are forms of privilege

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #123)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:14 PM

129. So you're saying black men are gentically predisposed to being criminals?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:18 PM

131. How the fuck did you get THAT out of what was posted above?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:26 PM

132. Let slackmaster defend himself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #132)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:32 PM

133. It seems to be something you've made up out of thin air. ??? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:40 PM

136. Crickets from slackmaster

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #136)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:41 PM

137. I wouldn't answer that kind of stupidity either. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:47 PM

139. Still crickets from slackmaster! So why are more black men in jail if it isn't WMP?

 

He's backed into a corner and can't defend what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:12 PM

214. Here's the problem with your stupid post, Mo...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #214)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:20 PM

227. Sounds like sour grapes. Either it's genetic or WMP or let's hear something else from slackmaster

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:14 PM

225. Good question. Why are 11x as many men in jail if we're the privileged gender?

I really do insist on an answer to this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #225)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:25 PM

229. Men are the guilty sex all over the world but you can't say that about race

 

You can correctly say that about men but you can't morally or politically say that about race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #229)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:50 PM

235. You're comfortable with sexism but not racism?

"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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #235)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:13 PM

243. Sexism definition leans toward discrimaination toward women since they tend to have less power

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #243)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:27 PM

254. Word salad. I asked an exceedingly simple question.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #254)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:52 PM

292. Women can't be sexist because they don't have the institutional power

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #292)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:34 AM

299. bullshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #299)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:43 AM

301. You might not like the answer,but many intellectuals agree with me and unlike slackmaster i answered

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #301)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:55 AM

331. This entire thread is a trainwreck of sexism disguised as progressivism.

and you're responsible for it.

If that was your takeaway from college, you should demand your money back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #136)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:04 AM

334. I was out watching football and drinking gin and tonic

 

How on Earth did you get the idea that I was making such a suggestion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:20 PM

164. It looks like he intended to reply to #122

It took me a minute to figure out where that came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #164)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:35 PM

167. That's called conflating, I think.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #167)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:56 PM

171. It's either genetic or WMP, what else is there? That's why slackmaster won't respond, he's cornered

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #171)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:05 AM

336. I wasn't "cornered" or in any way avoiding responsing to you, MightyMopar. I actually have a life.

 

I don't sit in front of a computer all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #129)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:02 AM

333. No, I'm not saying that at all. Are you?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #333)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:13 PM

384. So why are so many black men in jail? Genetics or White male privilege?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #384)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:20 PM

388. Because A. They have (in most cases) committed crimes, and B. A white person who has committed...

 

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:56 PM

238. That's not how privilege is defined

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #238)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:34 AM

298. We don't live in an ideal world

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #298)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:20 AM

311. What you are describing are civil rights

Not social privilege. And WMP is not one thing and shouldn't be presented as one thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #118)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:00 AM

332. It's not a "mistake". People rightly see that CLASS BASED DISCRIMINATION is the most

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #332)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:46 PM

368. There definitely is class based descrimination

But people of the same class who are non-white have additional obstacles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #118)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:36 AM

422. That is not "privilege".....


(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...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:52 PM

140. Women should stop having baby boys. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #140)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:06 PM

142. They already are. Many are using fertility clinics to increase the chance of having a girl

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #142)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:18 PM

226. Reconcile this with your belief in male privilege.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #226)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:56 PM

293. These women are rebelling against male power and selfishness

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #140)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:28 PM

189. i love my boys so i will just have to settle for education. works for us. how peaceful and easy

that is.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:22 PM

145. It's not bigoted, of course. But those in a luxury condo don't like that pointed out....

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:51 PM

151. I have privilege and I'm a minority

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mdterp01 (Reply #151)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:56 PM

154. Thank you for posting.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaLynne (Reply #154)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:04 PM

157. Exactly; although I will say...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mdterp01 (Reply #157)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:09 PM

160. Yes, that was really interesting to me, too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaLynne (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:54 PM

170. I knew we still had far to go

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mdterp01 (Reply #151)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:06 AM

337. +1, what I've heard in the past is no one wants to have their accomplishments asterisked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:55 PM

153. Isn't this a defining difference between us and the Baggers?

Yes.....Just as a few dozen IQ points also are......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:05 PM

158. I am amazed that anyone takes this OP seriously

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink