General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Man-bashing." My favorite DU pule. [View all]YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)What we are saying, however, is that social markers, such as gender and race, mean that class impacts people of different genders and different races....well, differently.
Something to think about...take a look at the general population, and note the distribution of gender, sexual orientation, and race. Then, take a look at the poorest Americans, and again, note the distribution. Finally, take a look at the richest Americans, and note the distribution.
You will find that a disproportionate number of the richest Americans are straight white males, relative to the general population. Likewise, for the poorest Americans you will find that a disproportionate number of them are not white, and/or are women, and/or are not straight-again, relative to the general population.
Furthermore, the idea of "haves" and "have nots" doesn't mean that there aren't varying degrees of "have somes".
There's a whole spectrum of relative privilege in American society.
Finally, why are you invalidating people who have been and are discriminated against based on the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion-the list goes on! Because in order for there to be under-privileged groups, there have to be over-privileged groups.
I, for one, applaud WillPitt and others who recognize that they have social class privileges simply by their gender, their sexual orientation, and/or their race, etc. Like he said, that takes wisdom. But it also takes some courage, IMHO, in this society, to own up to your own privilege.
And for the record, I'm a straight white male.