If you don't believe that white men have a "gender/race" card that is played on their behalf

[beaconess]

automatically and without their having to do or say anything . . .

Let's see:

Government

43 U.S. Presidents - all 43 have been white men (100%)

In the entire history of the U.S. Senate, there have been:
5 black senators (1 woman, 4 men)
5 Asian American senators (all men)
6 Hispanic senators (all men)
3 Native American senators (all men)
34 white female senators

and 1,841 white males (97%)


Corporate America

4 African American male CEOs on the Fortune 500
1 African American female CEO on the Fortune 500
7 Hispanic CEOs on the Fortune 500
11 Female CEOs on the Fortune 500

and 477 white males (95%) (of course, the percentage would be even higher if we went beyond current numbers)

Media

Black Hosts of primetime cable programs - 0
Black Hosts of Sunday morning political talk shows - 0
Percentage of Sunday morning political talk show broadcasts with no black guests appearing anywhere in the program - 61%



So, the next time a white man accuses a woman or a minority of "playing the gender/race card," remind him that it was white men who made the rules, set up the table, decided who could sit at it and then dealt those cards to them from the bottom of the deck.

[Chovexani]

1. The deck is stacked.

k&r

[senseandsensibility]

2. I agree

And perhaps the fact that they don't HAVE to mention it is the biggest advantage of all.

[iverglas]

4. great minds ;) . n/t

[iconocrastic]

62. So what? - Let's everybody put their cards on the table.

Why should we pretend to hide these things.?

I'm not ashamed of being a white male. If you attack me for that - then let's take a close look at what upsets you about it.

Put up or shut up.

[iconocrastic]

63. If someone feels inferior because of their race or gender, that's not my problem.

Deal with it.

[beaconess]

65. Who attacked you or said you should be ashamed to be a white male?

However, you should be ashamed to have the obnoxious attitude that you do and even more ashamed to not have enough sense not to spout them so proudly - especially since your posts embody the very point many of us have made.

[iconocrastic]

66. I have no interest in your self-perception of inferiority

But your response only confirms my point.

Too bad.

Guess what, you get back what you give, and I'm giving it back to you now.

If professional victim-hood is what you want - then live it. I don't care.

"Many of us" - LOL - mob mentality is only weakness.

[iconocrastic]

67. Maybe instead of spending your evenings complaining to total strangers

You could lower your pride enough to have a decent relationship with a decent man.

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in such things.

[mbali]

68. You DO realize that you're talking to yourself, don't you?

:rofl:

[iconocrastic]

69. You obviously felt the need to chime in

So if the shoe fits you too, wear it.

[mbali]

88. As did you

The difference being that just about everyone else who has posted in this thread has had something interesting and meaningful to say. On the other hand, you just seem to want to rant and rave and prove how big and bad you are, while merely only displaying an appallingly limited, bigoted and, just downright pathetic view of the world.

So you can bully and bluster all you want, but the more you do, the more you just come across as nothing more than a pitiful (and pitiable), frustrated person who is doing more to demonstrate the OP's point about pervasive yet clearly distorted notions of white male superiority than any mere description could provide.

Carry on.

[iconocrastic]

99. No, "pitiful" describes a guy who accepts a feminist (and racist) rant, not one who rejects it

[defendandprotect]

79. You should be ashamed at holding unmerited power --- not at being a white male --- !!

[beaconess]

87. Among other things . . .

[iverglas]

3. how about the mere fact

... that no one ever even mentions their sex/race ...

White and male is just normal. Why notice it?

[defendandprotect]

80. Yeah, like, politically -- groups of all white males ......

with no expectation, need, or acknowledgment that something is wrong --- !!!

No one asks, where is the majority gender --- women ????

Where are the world's majority --- people of color???

How do the few come to rule --- the one key weapon is violence.

[iverglas]

92. I was just thinking of a funny example

On Curb Your Enthusiasm, the African-American family that Cheryl and Larry accommodate after Katrina are named Black. This is a subject of some amusement to Larry, who finds it to be funny coincidence. Had their name been White, it would have been funny for other reasons.

Does anyone even notice when a white person is named White - or Black? Their colour is never in issue, so the similarity of their colour and name, or contrast between them, is never even thought of.

A well-known progressive woman in Canada who died a few years ago was named Rosemary Brown, and she was indeed brown. She entitled her autobiography Being Brown. Her race was a big factor in her life (she immigrated to Canada from Jamaica). Imagine a white person named White calling his/her autobiography Being White. Well, maybe if s/he had grown up in South Africa ...

Years ago, a family named Black moved into a house whose back door was only a few feet from the back door of a friend of mine. The children were horrific; destructive and unregulated. My friend caught himself one day referring to those horrid little Black children. They were actually white, but he realized it didn't sound good. ;)

I guess an equivalent, in terms of sex/gender, is when a woman is referred to as a "female doctor", and that sort of thing. And then there are "male model" and "male nurse" -- and what else would a man be, and why would anyone think it necessary to mention his sex?

When someone steps outside a stereotyped gender role, his/her sex is suddenly in issue. Female politician is a case in point.

[beaconess]

94. Those situations are always funny

A friend of mine is a college professor and is often visited by textbook publisher representatives who hope she'll use their books in her classes. One day, when she returned from lunch, her secretary told her, "The Little, Brown representative called and wants you to call him back." She responded, "How could you tell what he looked like by his voice?"

True story.

[defendandprotect]

98. Even stranger to think about is the fact that we're really NOT "white" . . .

if you check "white" skin color against a white piece of paper . . . obviously white people are people of color ---

Additionally, the native American Indians would sometimes call us the "pig people" ---
because of our pink skin ---

but, there are myths and legends which go with that --- animal links?

Jewish ban on pig eating?

Jewish ban on not mixing cow flesh and cow milk ---

The Native American points out that you can get "white" skin --- beige skin? --- from
black skinned people . . . but you can't get black people from white.

Anyway, I think this is all humorous based on skin color superiority --
while we're 99.9% connected to the Chimpanzees --- !!!

[nightrider767]

5. Now that prejudice has gone under ground

We're all supposed to feel better about it.


:thumbsdown:

[wtmusic]

6. Why didn't women make the rules

set up the table, decide who could sit at it, etc.? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

81. Because of patriarchal violence . ..

[zalinda]

7. I understand what you are trying to say/do

but it's not a very good point. The plain fact is that the vast majority of people who have EVER run for office have been white males.

As for corporate America, there are ceilings, but the vast number of people who have started businesses have been white males.

And the media, well the repubs pretty much own all of that, so I won't comment.

zalinda

[beaconess]

8. Do you realize what you're saying? You're making my point for me.

Unless you think that the only reason that the vast majority of people who have ever run for office or started their own businesses have been white males is that white men were just better qualified, or had more ambition, or were otherwise better suited to do these things than minorities and women, who, if they had so chosen, could have done just as well as white men in thse endeavors?

Or could it be that the reason that the vast majority of people who have done these things were white men is that white men were the ONLY ONES who were ALLOWED to do these things - i.e., they used their race and gender to reap enormous advantages?

[zalinda]

25. Take a look around right now and see how many

women or people of color are running for office, how many are starting businesses? There are a lot of reasons there aren't as many, other than white men are better. To say that white men should be considered less because they ruled in history, smacks of racism and sexism. They ruled in history because that was the way it was, period, end of story. Now, women or people of color have no excuse for not running or not starting a business, but they still don't do these things in the same proportion as white men.

And let me give you one good example of when someone wants to do something, they do it. OPRAH Oh, and another one, Martha Stewart. The fact is that there are people out there who are not white men who have it made it quite well. And the fact is that it was also possible a hundred years ago, and was done by a woman named Madam C.J. Walker.........look it up.

The only ones that have had it easy in this country were RICH white men.

Trying to hint that a candidate might not do so well in an election because they are female or are non-white, is really sad. This is how racism and sexism continues. Yes, you recognize that things may not be as easy, but no one should make excuses for them if they fail, that only leads to "why bother, things are already stacked against me". And if a white man criticizes them, it may be because they deserved it, not because he thinks he's better because he's white.

zalinda

[beaconess]

30. Your post is Exhibit A

It's very sad that you are so unknowledgeable about this issue that you would actually point to Oprah, Martha Stewart and Madame Walker as "proof" that blacks and women have not been held back by racism and sexism in America

Yet, you are so blind to the very real obstacles faced by women and minorities that you seem to truly believe that noting the existence of racism and sexism is in itself racism and sexism.

I'm sure you mean well and truly believe what you're saying, but your view that minorities and women are to blame for the grossly disproportionate advantages that white men have always enjoyed, enforced and fought to maintain (since you seem to believe that women and minorities are themselves to blame for not achieving what millions of white men and three women have accomplished) is exactly the attitude I was pointing out in my post.

[zalinda]

34. There has been and is racism and sexism in the world

but that isn't what is holding most people back. If that were the case then people of foreign origin would NOT own businesses, and we all know that they do. Women traditionally have wanted to stay in the home and raise their children. And if you asked a lot of non-career working women you would find that a large number would like to stay home and raise their children. And believe me I've seen sexism in the work place. Back in the 70's when I worked at one company, men could smoke at their desks, women couldn't. Or at the Detroit gas company, men doing the exact same job as a women would get paid more. When I asked why, I was told it was because they could be called on to lift 50 pounds. When I said I could lift 50 pounds, it didn't seem to matter, I didn't get a pay increase. Or the women who's boss retired, and SHE had to train the new guy coming in to replace him. Or I didn't get a job because I was in competition with a man. When I asked why he got the job and I didn't, it was because he would have a family to support. Even in the 90's, Bristol Meyers made women wear skirts at work, they may still have to.

What we do know is that women and people of color tend to get stuck in jobs. Why? Because they usually are too poor to be able to switch jobs and are living on the edge of homelessness. White men though seem to have a tendency to take risks. Take a look around and see who are in the riskiest jobs or even riskiest sports, it's white men. And all white men didn't have an easy time in this country either. Any ethnicity but English had a really difficult time when they first came to America, a number of them came here as indentured servants.

There is something about men that may be inbred to be risk takers, and women, not so much. With blacks or latinos it may be their culture, or stuck in a dead end job and so they dare not risk their livelihood. With the Internet things have been changing, many women that I know have part time businesses on the net. They still aren't risking much, and they can be home with their kids, or grandkids. Many people of color are now finding out that the Internet can be their way out of a dead end job. This places less risk on their families.

But, to raise sexism or racism as a reason why people fail to make it, is to say to them don't bother with the risk, it is already stacked against you. The people who are/were the most successful, are/were the people who didn't see the racism or sexism, they just saw their goal.

zalinda

[raccoon]

37. "Women traditionally have wanted to stay in the home and raise their children."

Women traditionally have done that; whether they wanted to or not is certainly debatable. Up until recently, the vast majority of the time, they had no choice.

Women traditionally were barred from many jobs and professions.

In the America I grew up in, if a woman worked outside the home she had to find her own day care. That is, her mother or some neighbor woman or a black woman to look after her kids while she was at work.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Oh but I'm sure that it's because we're 'bred' to want to be barred from professions

Make less money, have fewer opportunities, work for sexist assholes, etc. Yes, when women today decide "screw it, it's not worth it stay in the rat race where I have little to no support for my family roles" and stay home with the kids, it's merely an indication of our deeply biological orientation to do that. :eyes:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Oh my god. I don't even know how to start with this.

You yourself have been subjected to discrimination and yet you make excuses for sexism and racism. You actually try to come up with cultural and biological justifications for it. Unbelievable.

[spooky3]

39. you need to review the empirical research in top academic journals

Using anecdotes alone does not make the case, especially when the variables affecting something are complex. For every anecdote you describe, someone else can offer at least one anecdote showing the exact opposite point. And that presumes we trust the story-tellers to accurately perceive and recall the situations. Controlled research solves these and other problems.

If you will look at the literature in the best journals in sociology, psychology, management, labor economics, and related fields, you will see that study after study shows the existence of gender and race related disadvantages even today, with regard to many decisions such as who gets jobs, who gets promoted, etc., even after the effects of "legitimate factors" (such years of job-related experience, relevant degrees or other qualifications) that could account for differences in outcomes are controlled. You can find many of these studies using Google and read the abstracts (summaries) if you don't want to read the whole articles. If you PM me, I would be happy to send you a couple of examples of these very recent articles.

[beaconess]

50. Wow

"women and people of color {are} usually are too poor to be able to switch jobs and are living on the edge of homelessness."
Oh, really? 75% of black people are NOT poor.

"White men though seem to have a tendency to take risks. Take a look around and see who are in the riskiest jobs or even riskiest sports, it's white men."
Oh. Thank God for all those brave white men who were so willing to take the risk of allowing black men and women to do the hardest, most dangerous, most back-breaking jobs while they stood around, and supervised and got rich off of the sweat of lazy, risk-aversion black folk (when they weren't raping their women and selling their children and passing and upholding laws that kept them from voting and from owning property and from living where they wanted and going to decent schools and telling them that the only reason their lives weren't better was that they were just too damned lazy or ignorant to do as well as white folk)

And all white men didn't have an easy time in this country either. Any ethnicity but English had a really difficult time when they first came to America, a number of them came here as indentured servants.
Yes - if only black slaves and their progeny were as willing to take risks and work as hard as white immigrants and indentured servants, we, TOO, would be much further along today.

With blacks or latinos it may be their culture,
Stereotype much?


The people who are/were the most successful, are/were the people who didn't see the racism or sexism, they just saw their goal.
And you know that the most successful black people "didn't see racism and sexism" how?

FYI, I am a very successful black person - and I see racism and sexism every day of my life. I have managed to do well, not just because I had a goal and worked hard, but because I had opportunities that many people don't have - and because Affirmative Action opened doors for me that had been closed to many of those who came before me and enabled me to shine and succeed once I got through the door (and even once through the door, I STILL had to combat racism and sexism).

[zalinda]

77. And you didn't let sexism or racism deter you

now did you? That is my point. You don't cry racism or sexism because things aren't going your way, well unless you are getting beat up. But all kinds of people are prejudged, fat ones, skinny ones, ugly ones, short ones, gay ones, disabled ones and the list goes on. Unless you look like Barbie or Ken there is a strike against you, and you had better be a tall Barbie or Ken. I don't fall into either of those categories. Affirmative action is great, it has helped many people achieve something that they wouldn't have been able to achieve without the helping hand. But, as with anything, it has also had it's drawbacks, like some people who got promoted but were ill equipped for the job.

Thank goodness you are not on the bottom of the heap anymore, that has been reserved for Middle Eastern people. You talk as if it is 50 years ago, and it's not. Many women and people of color have been very successful, but they don't own billion dollar companies, they own million dollar companies or smaller. They have been able to climb out from poverty because of their or their parents hard work. The original OP stated that there are very few high ranking politicians or CEO's that are women or people of color, and my answer was that every one at one time or another has had problems with succeeding, ALL EXCEPT RICH WHITE MEN.

The OP started this thread as a thinly disguised dig at any white man that is running for President. And my answer is this......if I vote for Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black, then I am no better than the person who votes for some one because he/she is cute. It doesn't matter what the contest is, whether looks or gender, has never been a factor for me. What counts is what they bring to the table, so to speak.

I'm almost 60 years old, I lived through the Detroit riots. I've seen real racism, and lived with it with my extended family. I've lived through prejudice and I'm still living it, as I don't look like a Barbie and never did. And while I have had a rough time, I have NEVER blamed white men for my problems. I have never hated a Barbie, who had life much easier. I have learned that I am just as responsible for my problems as any other person is responsible for their's. A lot of people keep trying to go through that locked door, and complaining when it won't open, but others have learned to go around it. I learned, and my guess is, so have you.

zalinda

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

90. "dry bags," "hysterical women," "castration-complexed ideologues"

:wow:

By the way, "the woman" didn't ignore the post you're answering; she replied just above.

[iconocrastic]

95. How does one talk about gender without mentioning biology?

Maybe that's not permitted.

Doesn't change the facts.

Try Sigmund Freud if you really want to be shocked.

[Sparkly]

107. You call that "mentioning biology?"

At the risk of sounding Freudian, how are your relationships with women? :crazy:

[iconocrastic]

118. That depends on who they are and who they aspire to be

I have no tolerance for certain types.

Including a few who post overtime here.

Reality-deniers.

Waste of time.

[defendandprotect]

82. "...because that was the way it was, period, end of story." NO---!!!

Men have ruled because of their main asset --- violence.

White men continue to have advantages in a patriarchy which women and minorities do not have.

And, women are not necessarily looking to be Martha Stewart -- !!!

Women have interests and values opposed to patriarchal/capitalistic values ---
especially anti-war values.

[bigwillq]

9. Those are some interesting stats.

Thanks for posting.

[FrenchieCat]

10. But, but, but........

That's what puts Edwards in the "most electable" category, doncha know?
.....although his wife Elizabeth clearly said that his race and gender actually put him at a disavantage!

Go figure! :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

12. Did she reallly say that? nt.

[beaconess]

22. "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman.

Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

So, apparently, John Edwards - who, had he been black, would never have been able to be hired by and become a partner in two major North Carolina law firms, regardless of his qualifications or be elected U.S. Senator with no previous political experience - is now at a disadvantage in the presidential race because he's neither black nor a woman. This despite the fact that in 240 years, this country has elected ONLY white men to the presidency.

[IndianaJones]

11. that would be their entire life. education, jobs, justice. nt.

[Orrex]

13. White males never play a gender/race card

They just hang onto the whole deck.

Disclaimer: I'm part of that privileged-by-default demographic, alas.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Somewhat akin to a frontrunner not attacking the distant hounds

None of this is particularly startling. There are certainly a lot of different dynamics at play than usual in this race, but much of this is rote politickin'.

[KingFlorez]

14. Such a great point

[JeffR]

15. Rec #5

for a great, great post.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Anyone can seek office, as long as they run as a white male

It's not so much gender and skin color... it's whether you are willing to run as a person with no identity.

White males have a built in identity.

Non-white or non-male candidates are expected to adopt a de facto white male identity and deny they are who they are. For some reason, any acknowledgment of non-white or female identity is considered in bad taste.

[beaconess]

18. You are so right

The attitude among some seems to be "You're welcome into our club, as long as you adapt completely to our way of doing things, our way of thinking and our way of seeing the world. If you go along with the program, we will let you in, and, if you're really nice, we'll call you articulate (which really has nothing to do with your ability to ar-ti-cu-late, but actually means that we don't think you sound black when you talk). But the minute you do or say anything that gives even the slightest indication that you don't believe that white must be right or that you think your own culture is of any value, we will shut you down but quick, accuse you of playing the race card, race-baiting, and falling into the victimhood trap.

"You may come in, now."

[beaconess]

19. Let me add info on the third branch - the U.S. Supremes

Since the nation's inception, there have been 110 Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

2 have been black
2 have been women
none have been Hispanic
none have been Asian
none have been Native American

108 have been white (98%)
106 have been white males (96%)

while for about a dozen years (1993-2005) there were two women serving on the Supreme Court, there has never been more than one African American on the Court - and, in fact, the second African-American justice was appointed to succeed the first.

[ThomCat]

21. The day there are Native American's at the top of

any of our branches of government I think a lot of bigots' heads will explode! Given the history of how we've treated Native Americans I'd love to see them get some power in our government. We might finally see some justice.

[defendandprotect]

83. There's still a GOP war on Native Americans ... --- !!!!

And their government/$$$$ issues are unbelievable --- !!!

[spooky3]

32. I agree with your points, but let's not forget that women are 51%

of the population while blacks are fewer than 13%. So while underrepresentation of both groups--and other groups--is appalling as well as sexist and racist, the fact that there were two women on the court once, but never more than one black, must be viewed in proportion to their presence in the population. This is the same logic used to argue that there are two few blacks on the court in the first place (i.e., that for many years there was no black on the court though there were many blacks in the population).

[beaconess]

33. I understand your point. But one black on the court means blacks are underrepresented

since one black justice out of nine is 11%, lower than our population. Since we can't put fractions of people on the Court, 2 blacks would be 22%, an overrepresentation.

But what's the problem with blacks (or women) being overrepresented every now and then? People seem perfectly comfortable with white men being overrepresented in just about everything (well, everything that's good - if it's something bad, they are very comfortable with blacks and women being overrepresented there). What's wrong with, instead of having the Court be 11% black and 89% white, having it be 22% black and 78% white? Or instead of 22% female and 78% male, having it 55% female and 45% male? It's not like white folks would be getting a horribly raw deal if they are make up more than 3/4 of the Court, even if it means that their number is slightly lower than their numbers in the overall population. They've certainly benefitted from overrepresentation for centuries. Why would it be so awful if someone else were overrepresented for a change?

Of course, ensuring that a group's numbers are in line with or exceed their numbers in the population is fine and dandy - as long as that group is white males. But let their numbers dip below a certain point, by virtue of the presence of women or blacks in numbers that go beyond a critical mass - and suddenly the unspoken white man's quota kicks in and it is imperative that the white man's affirmative action be put into place.

[spooky3]

36. I agree--as I stated, there is no question that both groups

are underrepresented as are other demographic groups (Latinos, Asian-Americans, etc.) and I don't think many people would agree that Clarence Thomas' judicial actions are very representative of anything other than someone that conservative white men feel comfortable having on the court. My concern is just that comparing degrees of being underrepresented is tricky. When some people (not you) see one woman on a court and say "look at the progress!", they are forgetting that there should be at least three more for them to be proportionate to the population; likewise to be proportionate, there should be more than 200 female members of Congress, etc. I think there is also a tendency on the part of some people to mentally overstate the numbers, maybe to reinforce their sense of progress or equity. I work in a male-dominated occupation and in a prior job, out of a department of nearly 30 people the highest proportion of women over 15 years was about 15% at any one time, and it was usually less than 10%. Yet one of my white male friends who considered himself very liberal (from NYC) asserted to another man that our department was "about half" female.

And I am not arguing that #s should be exactly proportionate, particularly not if a completely merit based selection system is used (e.g., theoretically a court could be all female or all minority under this system and be fair). However, I have yet to see a completely merit based system - particularly, none involving voting or political appointments, for the reasons you pointed out in your OP and in replies here.

[iverglas]

45. You might be interested in the "critical mass" theory

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0562-e.htm
-- a background paper on women in Parliament prepared for Canadian parliamentarians

The international community has made a number of commitments to rectify the under-representation of women in parliament. For example, the equal participation of women and men in public life is one of the cornerstones of the 1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), of which Canada is a signatory. Inequality between men and women in positions of power and decision-making was one of the twelve key areas identified in the landmark 1995 Beijing Platform for Action.

The widely recognized minimum benchmark to ensure a critical mass of women parliamentarians has been set at 30%.(2) By the end of 2005, however, the proportion of women in parliaments around the world stood at 16%; the proportion of women holding Cabinet-level office was even lower, at 14.3%.

(2) This is the benchmark used by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations.

http://archive.idea.int/women/parl/ch5b.htm

Feminists often argue that pioneer women parliamentarians became surrogate men ­ that they were socialized into the legislature and became indistinguishable from the men they replaced. We doubt this. Men are known to behave differently when women are absent. Because it upsets gender boundaries, the presence of even one woman will alter male behaviour; the presence of several women will alter it even further. West European experience shows that where women MPs have a mission to effect change even small numbers can produce significant results.

While the presence of even one woman can make a difference, long-term significant change will largely be realized when there is a sufficient number of women in parliament who are motivated to represent women's concerns. This need for a significant minority of women to affect political change has been referred to by feminist political scientists as "critical mass". According to Drude Dahlerup, the test that a critical mass of women is present is the acceleration of the development of women's representation through acts that improve the situation for themselves and for women in general. These actions are critical acts of empowerment.

In her studies of women MPs in Scandinavia, Dahlerup found that women politicians worked to recruit other women, and developed new legislation and institutions to benefit women. As their numbers grew it became easier to be a woman politician and public perceptions of women politicians changed.

If you google "critical mass" women legislature you'll find criticism of the critical mass theory as well. I'm not conversant enough with it to say anything particularly useful, but it is an interesting subject.

[spooky3]

49. yes, very interesting

[beaconess]

46. You're right - but isn't it interesting

that the thought of an all white or all female court would be considered an aberration? Yet when white men are disproportionately represented in so many sectors, many people assume that this just means that white men were more qualified than women and minorities for whatever reason.

Your point about the department being seen as "about half" female is also very interesting. It reminds me of how a workplace or school with 98 whites and 2 blacks is considered "diverse" while a workplace or school with 51 blacks and 49 whites is "black."

Or, one of my favorites - the "why do all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria?" question.

[spooky3]

48. very good points

[defendandprotect]

84. We need gender balance laws --- females: not less than 40%/not more than 60% representation --

[beaconess]

85. Good luck with that

Maybe if all of the white women who have either not lifted a finger in support of affirmative action for racial diversity or actively fought against it had a change of heart about the issue, you might prevail. But it's not likely.

One real frustration in this issue has been the number of white women who have done nothing to help protect affirmative action when it comes to racial disparities or have completely gone out of their way to get rid of it - yet many of them will be the first ones to complain about their own lack of representation in positions of power. (I'm not saying you are one of them - just making a point). The hypocrisy and utter lack of understanding that we're all in this boat together is really a shame.

For example, last year when Ward Connerly brought his battle to eliminate Affirmative Action to Michigan, African Americans fought like hell to stop the ballot measure from passing. While some women and women's groups supported us, most just sat it out, as if it just wasn't their concern. And when the vote came down, it passed by a narrow margin. While the anti-affirmative action measure was overwhelmingly supported by white men, a majority of white women voted for it, as well, providing the margin of victory. (Wow - won't THEY be surprised when they find out that the measure they voted for doesn't just apply to black folk, but limits THEIR opportunities, as well!) And, of course, let's not forget that the poster child for this entire effort was Jennifer Gratz, the white woman who launched an anti-Affirmative Action crusade when she didn't get into the University of Michigan and decided it must be because one of the handful of black students who were admitted took her seat (apparently none of the white students who ALSO got in ahead of her was undeserving of admission, just the black students).

So, while I agree with you that women need to have much more representation than we do, it would be nice if more white women - who have benefitted more from Affirmative Action than any other group - would support racial diversity, as well.

[defendandprotect]

96. Understand . . .. and do you think that part of their lack of response is that they ....

haven't been thinking in political terms, i.e., that politics effects your life every moment of your life?

Very few women have been encouraged to be political ---
if you watch TV, women have careers cleaning Johns and baring their boobs - !!!

Also -- since Gloria Steinheim took over the women's movement was much less poltical ---
and more indivudally centered --

She was great to look at, but no political leader ---

Not to entirely blame her -- the women's movement certainly freaked out the patriarchy ---
harsh responses -- but of course, the feminist ideal continues to travel from brain to brain!!!

May it always be so --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

97. ...and we've just had Kean, Jr. elected to our State Senate --- !!!

Anyone think privilege and white maleness had nothing to do with it --- ???

[ThomCat]

20. Any attempt to point out white privilage

or racism is usually shot down as "playing the race card." And any attempt to point out male privilage or sexism is usually shot down as "playing the gender card."

It's just another way to tell people to shut of and stop being uppity. x(

[beaconess]

23. True

Funny thing is - white man have had the whole pie pretty much to themselves for so long that now that they're expected to share some of it - even though they STILL get to keep a disproportionate amount for themselves - some of them genuinely feel that they're being discriminated against.

It's interesting that so many people think nothing of minorities being grossly underrepresented (which means, of course, that white men are overrepresented) in so many aspects of American life - they treat that as just the way things go.

For example, they think nothing of George Bush and his ilk slothing their way to the top, taking up seats at Yale, getting whatever job they want with no qualifications, no skills, nothing to justify their being there other than the names in the "Father" and "Mother" sections of their birth certificates. They just shrug and write it off to "life's not fair."

But just let them get turned down for a spot at a university, or a scholarship, or a job and then see a black face in the room that they couldn't get in to - all hell breaks loose with screams of "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" "QUOTA!" It doesn't even matter if that black person actually took their spot - THEY'RE IN THE ROOM AND I'M NOT!!!

It doesn't matter that there are 100 spots available and 5 spots were taken by blacks and the other 95 by whites (including the legacies, the geographic preference, the athletic admission, the Dean's son's friend, the Dean's friend's son, and the other George Bushes of the world). They don't shrug and say life's not fair and go on about their business. They don't go after any of those 95 white people who got in ahead of them and insist that they got an unfair advantage. No - they target the 5 black people who made it in, accusing them of using race to usurp THEIR spot.

The underlying notion, of course, is this: "I know life isn't always fair. Lots of people will get ahead of me whether they deserve it or not. But I am a white man, dammit. And no matter how low I go, no matter how wretched I may be, I am ALWAYS supposed to do better than a black person. And if a black person gets ahead of me, it is a distortion of the natural order of things and I have every right to object."

[cuke]

24. And on DU

we have posts and threads calling dems "wimps". Soon, DUers will be making fun of Reid's sweaters

[DeepModem Mom]

26. K&R

[abq e streeter]

27. It has become more and more RICH white men

and the average white working guy is being left in the dust too. We dismiss and belittle their concerns and frustrations at our peril; as they perceive that the left does exactly that: belittling and dismissing them as if they were part and parcel of the ruling class, and we have, in my opinion, driven many of them into the eagerly waiting clutches of the right wing that cynically pretends to care about them.

[beaconess]

31. I'd be a little more sympathetic to these "average white working guys" if many of them

didn't line up with and often break their necks trying to assist the very people who do all that they can to maintain the racial status quo. These men aren't stupid. They understand just what they're doing.

I'm also growing weary of being told that we must be much more patient and tolerant and understanding of these white guys who are just so frustrated about not being at the very top of the heap (despite the undeniable advantage their white skin has given them) that they have been "driven into the clutches" of the right wing who manipulate their anger for their own purpose while on the other hand, I have to put up with all manner of white folk telling ME and my people (and women, and minorities, etc.) that our frustration is just whining, our anger is misplaced, our position in society is our own damned fault, and, in fact, we are responsible for all of those angry white men's lot in life.

They are not being belittled or dismissed. Their cause is shoved down our throats at every turn - politicians cater to them (usually kicking us to the curb in order to chase after those "average white working guys), the media constantly cheerleads for them, and we have to listen to even folks on our side lecture us to be more patient and understanding of them. Yet whenever we point out that we, too, might have some issues, we're told by all of the same people that WE'RE playing the race card and if we just shut up about it, racism and sexism would go away.

[abq e streeter]

55. Thank you for your reply

your ignorant, bigoted, and arrogant stereotyping of so many of the people the Democratic Party and the left in general used to proudly stand up for has made my point far more eloquently than I could have. Again, thank you for your invaluable assistance.

[beaconess]

57. Given the attitude you've expressed in your post, I'm quite pleased to see that you disagree

with me so strenuously.

So, you're welcome and thank you right back.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. No shit. According to him it's our fault that insecure white dudes are easily manipulated..

If the uppity wimmenz, gays, and coloreds would just shut our traps and stop trying to get rights, maybe Goober and Gomer would see fit to vote our way. :eyes:

[mitchum]

71. Just as easily as women can be manipulated into voting for a corporatist warmonger...

out of some sense of uterine solidarity?
I suspect that...someone...is counting on that degree of gullibility

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Don't look at me. She's not my pick. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. It's their own damn fault

Sorry, but the average working white dude is the most catered to and coddled voting bloc, with the possible exception of senior citizens. Every politician tippy toes on eggshells around the Homer Simpsons, NASCAR Dads, racist goobers, and gun nuts (often one and the same) not daring to breathe a word of anything that would sound like a threat to their petty little place at the top of the pecking order. These guys totally fall for it and vote against their own economic interests again, and again.

It's not the left who convinces average white working guys that they are among the ruling class. It's the right that does it, with their racist code words and cheap flattery. Your average white male Republican is a guy who will tolerate living in a cardboard box under a bridge, so long as its bigger than those of the Blacks, Hispanics, and gays also living under the bridge.

You know what? I'm tired of them. We can win without the white male vote.

[spoony]

53. "We can win without the white male vote."

I love it when DUers decide they want to cut out entire segments of the party because of their personal jaded, stereotyping bullshit. Thank God you aren't a strategist.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

54. The white males who have a brain in their heads will vote for us

As for the rest, you can pretend all you want, but I've been working in industries dominated by Typical White Males for years and know from whence I speak. If you think it's a good idea waste energy and resources pandering to insecure racist goobers then I'm glad you're not a strategist.

[abq e streeter]

56. Thank you for your reply

your ignorant, bigoted and arrogant stereotyping of so many of the people the Democratic Party and the left in general used to proudly stand up for has made my point far more eloquently than I could have on my own. Thank you for your invaluable assistance.

[mitchum]

72. But how does that explain the 45% of the female vote that the republicans typically pick up?

They are also stupidly voting against their own economic interests again, and again.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

75. They subscribe to traditional roles

They will vote for politicians they perceive to embody "strong family values" and represent the interests of the men they see as providers. Obviously, this has no more basis in economic reality than the reasoning of the men, but there you have it. Of course, with Bush it was the strong protector image his campaign projected.

[mitchum]

100. I agree with you; that is also my theory as to why many women vote for a party...

that is intent on oppressing both their economic opportunity AND reproductive rights.
Self-defeating stupidity is not the exclusive behavior of either XX or XY

[Snarkturian Clone]

43. you're right. NT

[MattSh]

28. That's true IF (and that's a big IF)...

IF you believe the only things of value can only be created by politicians, Fortune 500 CEO's, and media personalities.

Personally, I know hundreds of people, many of them white males, many of them NOT, who have "accomplished" more than any of the current batch of politicians, most CEO's and all media personalities have ever accomplished, and not a one of them would trade their positions to be a politician, a Fortune 500 CEO, or a media personality. And many of them are NOT white males.

Question. Is there something wrong with them because they don't "aspire" to the careers you listed???

:grr:

[incapsulated]

29. uh, way to miss the point

Her point was that since white males have held just about all the positions of power in this country the idea that they would turn around and accuse either a woman or a person of color of "playing the gender/race card" to get ahead is.... rich.

[semillama]

35. This is tangental, but I have a question

Who were the three Native American Senators? I know Ben Nighthorse Campbell was one, but don't know the other two.

and I totally agree with you by the way.

[beaconess]

47. Charles Curtis (Kansas) and Robert Owen (Oklahoma)

The U.S. Senate website has these and other interesting statistics.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/minority_senators.htm

[semillama]

89. Thanks! n/t

[beaconess]

91. No prob.

[Grandrose]

42. Brilliant post....thank you! (K&R)

Knowing and seeing the statistics is startling and overwhelming to say the least! Sad thing is....will it ever change?
:applause: :yourock: :kick:

[beaconess]

52. I think it will - it already is, but it is SO slow!!!

Reminds me of Thurgood Marshall's response to a question about why he was so anxious to rapidly desegregate the schools after Brown, instead of taking a more gradual approach:

"Believe it or not I am for the gradual approach. But there's a difference in what you mean by gradual. I think 91 years since the Emancipation Proclamation has been gradual enough."

We are moving "gradually."

[donsu]

44. true

nt

[AtomicKitten]

51. Dead-on accurate post.

Thanks. K&R

[mitchum]

58. Anything to avoid talking about CLASS, right?

not surprising to see even Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever fall for, or willingly, play that game

[DURHAM D]

60. Why don't you start a thread on the issue?

This OP has set a high standard on this particular issue so good luck to you.

[mitchum]

70. I rest my case

[Scout]

93. it's true in all classes....

if you are white and male you are better off than those in the same class who are not white and/or not male.

You can't really be so dense as to not see that?

[mitchum]

101. True, but an individual who is an economically privileged female...

certainly has far more advantage than a non-economically privileged white male.

You can't really be so dense as to not see that?

[beaconess]

103. It depends upon the circumstances . . .

"Economically privileged" white women and blacks are still subjected to discriminatory treatment that white men, whatever their economic status, do not have to endure. For example, every professional black man that I know has several times in their lives been pulled over and harrassed by a police officer. You see, black folk don't often have a chance to show their "This person has money, so treat them like a white person" card before they get treated like criminals by a cop, who has less education and a much lower salary, but has the legal authority and power to treat a black person anyway they want.

And claiming that because a wealthy white woman may have some advantages that a poor white man doesn't is a faulty argument. Until women and blacks have the same advantages as similarly situated men and whites, there is still a problem with sexism and racism in America.

The bottom line is that being white - especially a white male - in America brings built in privileges and advantages, whether people want to admit it or not.

[mitchum]

104. Okay...since we're now playing in an anecdotal fashion...

none of the the professional black man I know (and I know many) have ever been pulled over and harassed by the police. However, I know several black men AND white men of the economic underclass who have been pulled over and harassed by the police (and worse) I guess their magic get out of jail free penises hadn't been renewed or something...
Of course, racism and sexism are still major problems in America. However, since you are so concerned about the privations suffered by wealthy white women, I now feel much less guilty about having that issue way down on my priorities list.

[beaconess]

106. Some statistics for you

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (in a report that the Bush Administration tried to quash), while black drivers are not more likely to be stopped by police than white drivers, once stopped, they are subjected to significantly different and harsher treatment.

Handcuffing
Blacks stopped by police are more than three times as likely to be handcuffed as white drivers (6.4% for blacks v. 2% for whites).

Blacks were 11% of drivers stopped by police, but 25.7% of drivers who were handcuffed. On the other hand, whites were 76.5% of drivers stopped, but only 55% of drivers who were handcuffed.

Excessive Force
During a traffic stop, police were more than three times as likely to use excessive force against a black driver (2.5%) than against a white driver (0.7%)

Arrests
After a stop, black drivers are almost three times as likely to be arrested than white drivers (5.8% v. 2%).

Blacks were 11% of drivers stopped by police but 23.8% of drivers who were arrested. Whites were 76.5% of stopped motorists and 58% of drivers arrested.

Searching the Driver
Black drivers were more than three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop than white drivers (8.1% v. 2.5%)

Blacks represented 11% of drivers stopped by police but 24.6% of drivers who were physically searched. Whites were 76.5% of stopped drivers and 52.5% of the ones searched.

Searching the Vehicle
Black drivers were 2 1/2 times more likely to have their vehicle searched during a stop than white drivers (7.1% v. 2.9%).

Blacks were 11% of drivers stopped by police but 19.6% of drivers whose vehicle was searched. Whites were 76.5% of stopped drivers and 54.9% of those whose vehicle was searched.


Source: Contacts between Police and the Public Findings from the 2002 National Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2005 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf

[mitchum]

108. But where are your statistics about the privations suffered by wealthy white women?

I'll check back later. I've got to hurry off to my Pale Penis Overload Cabal meeting. I just hate being late for the division of the spoils.

[mbali]

109. Typical response from someone who just got blown out of the water

You accused Beaconess of using anecdotes, responded with your own anecdote, only to have her come back and smack you down with a boatload of statistics to prove her point.

Your response, "Oh, yeah? Well, well, well . . . what about . . .?" (followed by an all-too-familiar sarcastic penis reference)

Piece of work!

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchum]

111. And, y'know...maybe...I really don't fucking care as much as beaconess

and frankly, why should I?

[mbali]

113. You obviously care enough to keep arguing with and talking about her

Even though she has kicked your butt, but good, and you obviously have nothing to come back with other than petty vitriol.

I'm finding it quite entertaining - nothing like watching the "angry white man" who can't handle the fact that a black woman got the best of him.

:rofl:

[mitchum]

115. I could fucking care less whether someone is a black woman, but apparently YOU...

seem to have some issues with white men. Serious issues.
Carrying around that kind of rage is not healthy. Sister.
Particularly when it's likely that there is some not too far back in your ancestry.
Now, you can go ahead and alert.

[mbali]

116. Rave on

:rofl:

[mitchum]

117. I'm not raving; I'm just distracting you from toppling the patriarchy

hey, I've got my orders

And, you know...just because you use that stupid little laughing smilie, it still doesn't mean you've said anything funny

[abq e streeter]

120. ALL women are oppressed-didn't you see the memo?

Aren't you aware that white American middle and upper class women are among the the most wretched, oppressed creatures on the earth? And that even white working class males are their oppressors ? There, I bet you feel silly for not having realized that sooner.

[Kurovski]

59. K&R.

And I'd add to that: "wealthy" most politicians were already wealthy to begin with.

[beaconess]

64. True

But while many of them may have been wealthy when they become politicians, they didn't always start out that way. And even many of those who were born wealthy were only one or two generations removed from being much less than rich, if not poor or even destitute.

Examples - JFK, Wilson, Reagan, Eisenhower, .

And can anyone claim with a straight face that had Nixon or Truman been black or female, they would have been able to rise up from their very modest beginnings to become leaders of the free world?

[Kurovski]

76. Absolutely not.

And Eleanor Roosevelt herself had a hard enough time of it as it was.

But wealth often plays other factions of society against one another. It takes the focus off of them, as they exploit and diminish opportunities of "lesser" classes, start wars for gain, exploit resources and commodities, etc, .

[beaconess]

86. Yes, the wealth definitely comes into play

But the ability to obtain wealth was and is also impacted by race.

[mitchum]

102. Yes! Wealth ALWAYS plays other factions of society (the underclass)...

against one another. The economic overclass LOVES strife among all of the other identity groups- "pay no attention to that (rich) man behind the curtain..."

[defendandprotect]

78. Patriarchy is still with us . . . and its as suicidal as ever --- !!!

[slackmaster]

105. The police don't hassle middle-aged white guys in Hawaiian shirts

I think I'll put one on and go out for a beverage.

[beaconess]

112. Isn't it interesting how viciously, almost violently, angry - some people get

at the mere thought that some women and black folk have the NOIVE to point out the history of the white male privilege in America?

[Karenina]

121. Indeed, it is.

:rofl:

[Imagevision]

114. Hillay needs onlt tov start replacing some of the dicks at the pentagon and

the message a new girl is in town and she is calling the shots and we'll see some panty-wearing generals stand up straight and salute her! Many heads have to roll when/if Hillary - Obama begin to change things!

[beaconess]

119. :-) nt