A post about white privilege.

[redqueen]

Saw this on tumblr and thought it was worth sharing.

Go Forth and Educate Yourselves!

http://thesocietypages.org/
http://www.ensemble-rd.com/en
http://www.everyday-democracy.org/en/index.aspx
http://www.stophate.us/racism/
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://www.communitychangeinc.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html
http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/white_privilege.html


I’d also highly recommend watching the Jane Elliot Brown-eye/Blue-eye experiments, which can be found here:

(Part 1)

(Part 2 - Has very important points on Reverse Racism and how it doesn’t exist, and it also dismantles the “We All Bleed Red” mentality.)

http://jamietheignorantamerican.tumblr.com/post/72154890106/go-forth-and-educate-yourselves

(Regarding this person's statement that "tumblr hates white people": It's a common whine on tumblr and presented here as fact, but I'm sure no one here would take that claim seriously. Well mostly sure, hence this disclaimer.)

[whatchamacallit]

1. I haven't been keeping up

are DUers actually arguing there's no White Privilege?

[bettyellen]

6. yep, some underachieving idiot was saying Barack Obama got all the breaks, and he did not….

and he wasn't the only one, just the most ridiculous recent example. Last year someone (completely seriously) cited Beyonce. Wow.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Huh... lame

[Stuckinthebush]

96. Goes to show you - ignorance is trans-ideological!

We have ignorant people on DU, too. I'm sure there are only a few here who don't get the white privilege issue. Let's just teach them.

[msanthrope]

98. Can you link to the post you are referring to? nt

[HappyMe]

104. I think that it was a lengthy

exchange in the latest long feminist thread. At least I think that's where I saw it.

[msanthrope]

108. I want to see which DUer is the "underachieving idiot" according to the poster. nt

[HappyMe]

115. Oy.

I chose to ignore that crappy nastiness right there.

[msanthrope]

122. No...it's a stomach-churning call out that deserves a hide. If the poster has the courage to

admit which DUer they think is an "underachieving idiot" then I will alert...

If it is the DUer I think it is, then the utter lack of compassion for that DUer's story is nauseating.

[HappyMe]

145. I considered alerting on it.

I'm not confident it would get hidden, and I'm a bit too angry to write a good alert.

I have to say that I didn't read the entire exchange. I probably should go back and read it. I think that even if the person's story isn't a sad one, there still isn't much reason for name calling.

[nomorenomore08]

212. And a person who denies the existence of racism, which negatively impacts millions of lives, isn't

"lacking compassion"?

[msanthrope]

271. Kindly link to the DUer you think was doing that. nt

[nomorenomore08]

308. I won't call him out, but he was basically saying there's no such thing as institutional racism

AKA "white privilege." Which, if you ask pretty much any person of color, is laughable at best, offensive at worst.

[msanthrope]

309. Well, you did call him out. So why not have the courage of your convictions and cite what you

claim?

[nomorenomore08]

310. He said that President Obama has had it easier in life than he has so therefore that disproves

the existence of white privilege. And I'm not going to let you bait me into a hidden post - you know damn well that callouts by name are against the rules.

[bettyellen]

272. someone is trying to trap you into a getting a hidden post!

so clever, so and compassionate, cough couch.

[nomorenomore08]

273. People aways act like there's a huge difference between strongly implying something

and stating it outright. More of a difference than actually exists.

[bettyellen]

274. good point, lots of people play possum. pretending that having progressive views is forced lock step

instead of rightfully expected around here. Whut?
I have to laugh at these folks sweetly asking/ baiting/ whatever for me to link to a post. not a one of them is shocked to hear people say regressive things here, and needs the link. they know damn well it happens.

[msanthrope]

307. Then why not link for all of us to see which DUer you are talking about? Don't be coy. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

327. It was this past summer

Around the time of the white washing of MLK threads.

[bettyellen]

331. you're so funny!

[JDPriestly]

187. Stay away from the feminist threads so you can stay "HappyMe."

Don't touch them. They are toxic. Might as well eat tainted fish.

And I'm a woman. Sorry if anyone feels insulted. I believe in equal rights for women, but those threads are cesspools of pent-up anger. Ughhh.

[msanthrope]

190. We agree..and it's only 5-7 posters. nt

[RainDog]

223. I agree

The self-proclaimed spokespersons do more harm than good with their attacks on anyone who doesn't say.. why, thank you...now I'm so well informed... as tho so many of us haven't dealt with this stuff for years.

I had most of them on ignore, took them off to see for myself the claims, etc. and I'll put them back on again now.

It's hopeless, even when a variety of people are saying someone is acting rude - if a woman says it, you're a dog, if a man says it, he's a man and can't say anything.

The best thing is just to leave the echo chamber to itself.

eta: I had both males and females on ignore who were in these threads.

and, one last note. If the goal is to "teach" as some have said. They want others to shut up and listen and let them tell everyone else what to think - well, it would be considered abusive if a teacher told a student that student was an idiot. so the goal isn't to teach, the goal, over and over again, is to insult and stir up shit.

[kdmorris]

269. I wish I could predict which ones are going to blow up

There are so many good and wonderful feminists here that you can have a great conversation with.

And then there a few posters who self-identify as feminists who turn the whole thing into a cesspool.

Your post is one of the reasons that I keep fighting, keep saying "you are not our voice. Stop saying 'DU feminists' as if we are all united behind the toxic cloud of rage you have going".

That usually gets me anger and vitriol and "don't tell me what to say", but I just want to say that 99.9% of the feminists at DU are not like that.

And of course, sadly, I can't do anything but agree with the rest of your post. Because even though 99.9% of us aren't turning it into a cesspool, the other few make it so unbearable that you have to be a special kind of person to keep posting in those threads, knowing what's coming. Some days, I do fine... others I just want to rip my eyes out with a spoon.

[JDPriestly]

298. I understand the bitterness. It's about being cheated in nasty divorces, being left behind,

having few choices in life from the moment you start out, marrying the wrong man, never marrying and being alone, being born a lesbian and on that ground being rejected, feeling like an outsider, having children and being torn between your love for them and the agony of being housebound.

There are so many reasons for the bitterness including abuse, rape, being silenced, unheard. But when DU is reduced to a stage for acting out and spewing the bitterness, focusing on the negatives about being a woman and never the great joy that it is to be a woman, then I'm out.

Because being a young woman is a drag, and quite honestly when women in their 50s tell me their age and look at me with fear in their eyes, as if their lives were over, I reassure them that life does not begin for a woman until she is 50. It isn't quite true. Raising children, having a family, building a career are the best experiences, to be honest, the very best in life. But no woman is truly "liberated" until she can live more than 28 days without pain. Men do not know how much physical pain women endure simply because of their gender. But, take comfort, young women, somewhere around the age of 50, most of you will leave all that behind and that is the real liberation for a woman.

I understand the pain and the bitterness. There are many reasons for it, but the big one, the once a month day or so of agony and often depression is not the fault of any human. It's nature and we just have to deal with it knowing that we will be done with it one day.

All the other drawbacks about being a woman are things we can deal with if we include others in our struggle. We will lose if we exclude. Bitterness and anger are emotions that exclude so we need to use the delete button when we reread our posts and discover that they are exclusive and not inclusive. People won't read what you write if you are in exclusive mode all the time. If the posts are always about "poor me." "Look at what evil they did to me or us." or "If you don't agree with me, you are despicable." or "We are the victims." even if every word you say is true, you probably will end up just talking to the likeminded and maybe a few trolls who are there just to bait you. So, that's why I try to avoid feminist threads. And maybe this isn't appropriate for a thread about white privilege, but then what I am saying, the principle of it, does not just apply to feminists.

There are many men who sympathize with feminists and understand their anger. There are many white people who sympathize with people who are not white and understand their anger. After all, in the US, it was mostly white soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War to abolish slavery. Think of the white families who lost their white sons in that war. Think of the pain they suffered for a cause they believed in -- the emancipation of the slaves. Think of the bold men and women who stood in front of hostile audiences and tried to patiently but fervently persuade them that slavery was an abomination and should be ended. That took courage. So white privilege still exists. It's OK to say so. But be persuasive and strong, not offensive and petty when you talk about it. We don't get to choose the color of our skin. It's just a given. It's nobody's fault if they aren't a certain color. It's not a man's fault that he was born a man.

So be inclusive not exclusive. And let's don't blame people just because they were born males or just because they were born white. That won't change anything. That won't encourage understanding.

[kdmorris]

302. I agree with all of that

My stance is that there should be equality for every person - no matter their gender, race, nationality or any other factor. Each of us carries some sort of pain and I don't think that anyone has the exclusion in the Pain Olympics. I don't think it helps anything to go through life as if you are trying to win the Pain Olympics.

I am a woman. I have given birth to 5 children - three daughters who are in their twenties now and 2 twin sons who are now 6 1/2 months old. My daughters were born during a previous marriage, though my husband is their father. My ex-husband was never a father to them... he was abusive to them and to me and so they haven't seen him since 1996. I have been raped. I have had an abortion. I carried two 8 lbs babies and had a c-section to get them out. I have been leered at and discriminated against and treated like dirt.

I could be bitter. So many bad things have happened to me that I could just blame all men for them and treat them like crap. After all, a few men have treated me like crap. BUT I know that those men hurt me. Not all men - so blaming them all for things that have happened and coming to DU and posting things as if I do blame them... all that does is alienate the 99.9% of people who are our allies.

I can say that men are often not treated fairly in custody hearings without it meaning that I think women deserve to be treated badly. I can talk about many things having to do with gender equality without being forced to only talk about one thing.

Seriously, we are all in this together. We need each other and have more in common than not. Why stab my ally because my foe has done something horrible. And why keep making feminist issues so toxic that people will not even read them if your goal is to really further discussion on gender issues?

[JDPriestly]

303. Well said. Thanks.

[nomorenomore08]

311. There's a great deal of wisdom in this post. And I know what you're talking about but I don't

take anything on DU personally. Funny how some men on here complain about alleged male-bashing and yet, as a man, it doesn't bother me at all. Nor do I take discussions of racism personally, as a white guy.

[JDPriestly]

314. That's the best way to deal with it. It isn't intended to be personal. It still gets tiring.

Such a waste of time.

[nomorenomore08]

319. I try to ignore personal beefs and focus on the real issues, as much as I can.

Which is why it galls me when people complain about "misandry" or "reverse racism" and try to make it all about their supposed hurt feelings.

[chervilant]

289. And, yet, here you are,

making a blanket-statement, disparaging remark about the "feminist threads" on DU within an OP intended to address white privilege. Does the irony escape you?

[JDPriestly]

296. I'm a woman, but I don't feel welcome in the "feminist threads" because of the tone.

There is too much back-biting and too little tact. I'm a woman. I lived through the emancipation era of the 1960s and 1970s as a young woman. How could I not be a feminist? But I don't think I have to DEMAND in all caps that everyone else share my ideas. I think I have to be persuasive. Facts are persuasive. True stories are persuasive. Pictures are persuasive. We learn a lot from history and we teach others by sharing what we know. But constant fighting over who is a feminist and who is not is useless in my view. It is toxic. I can't judge all feminist threads, but I have seen so many that were just too toxic to read.

[polly7]

155. Link, or it didn't happen. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

157. Wow. Someone who's life hasn't worked out perfectly is an "underachieving idiot."

You're a real piece of work. I'll bet you were down with Romney's 47% remark, too. What a bunch of losers they are.

[bettyellen]

167. no, someone who thinks one successful black person proves there is no discrimination is an idiot.

the underachieving is their own self descriptor, and the yardstick they unfortunately measure the rest of the world against.

[whathehell]

80. No, I don't think so, and I do think it's curious

that the writer/author used a white WOMAN.

Why not use a better example of "white privilege" which would be a white MAN, preferably

a straight white man ..That way you get what might be called The Trifecta of Privilege.

I guess women are always a safer "target".

[redqueen]

83. The writer is a woman.

She used a woman because she is a woman.

[whathehell]

186. Okay..

but I still think a man would be a better example.

[JDPriestly]

189. The 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed more than a half a century

before women were granted the right to vote. And women in some states were not granted equal rights in marriage or in holding title to property or signing for a loan until, if I recall correctly, the 1960s. The promise of the 14th and 15th Amendments and the promise of equal rights for women were finally made somewhat real only in the 1960s. So, yes, women were treated just as badly as people of color of both genders. African-American women probably had the toughest time although that is changing.

[whathehell]

193. That's an interesting fact..

Thanks for pointing it out.

[JDPriestly]

299. There is a lot more where that came from.

For most of the history of Western civilization, women were treated as chattel. They were married off, engaged at maybe 12, married at 14. Women died in childbirth -- frequently.

Saddest of all is the fact that there were very brilliant women in our history whose stories are unknown, untold. Mathematicians, philosophers, writers, artists, leaders all. But there would have been many more had ordinary women throughout history had anything like the opportunities that all people of all genders and races and ethnicities have in America today.

I don't and can't go into the horror of the history of women. There were exceptions but in general, the hundreds of years of African slavery are a blip on the screen of history compared to the over 2000 years of the repression and subjugation of women in history.

But let's try to figure out how we can bring more equality for the sake of everyone. Because it is not just the young woman I knew in college whose application to the accounting department was turned down because "No woman has ever graduated in accounting at XYZ school" or the African-American child whose "separate but equal" education did not prepare him when it came to basic English skills who suffered as a result of the discrimination. It is every person in the world who lost the opportunity to have a better life due to the loss of the education and the subsequent loss of the ingenuity, brilliance, inventions, ideas, contributions of the woman who was not admitted to the accounting school or the child who never learned to read.

Discrimination does not just hurt the person who is discriminated against. It hurts all of our society. Discrimination is not just a personal injury. It is an injury to society.

That is why our discussion of our own pain at being discriminated against needs to be inclusive. We are not just representing our own individual interests when we talk about discrimination. We are representing the interests of our entire society. All children need equal opportunity. All women do too. And traditional women's work should be valued and respected just as much as the traditional work that men have done throughout history.

[El_Johns]

276. "So, yes, women were treated just as badly as people of color of both genders".

You're comparing not being able to get credit to 300 years of slavery & 100 years of Jim Crow?

[JDPriestly]

286. No. But I am pointing out that women did not have the right to vote until long after the Civil War.

Of course, the 14th and 15th Amendments which were passed to end slavery and establish equal rights for all did not become reality until the 1960s.

Economic equality for women also became more real in the 1960s and 1970s.

Women did not get to vote until more than a half a century after the emancipation of the slaves.

The Equal Rights Act for women was discussed for many years, but never passed.

That does not change the fact that there is a systemic bias against people of color in our society that makes it a lot harder economically to appear to be a person of color than to appear to be a white person.

Women, especially young women, still have to deal with being judged on their sexual appeal, their looks just as people of color may be judged by their skin color which is, like gender, another physical trait that cannot be changed.

[athena]

143. Just look further down the thread.

Say, post #109 or #136.

[Ms. Toad]

197. .

[athena]

2. Great cartoon.

K&R

[Cal Carpenter]

3. K & R

[Kurska]

4. "The reason tumbler hates white people is we are ignorant"

Dumb, dumb, dumb dumb, dumb dumb

and dumb.

Do people really not realize the best way to turn people off to whatever messaging you are trying to send is to tell them you hate them?

Sometimes I really think people on the left can be our own worst enemy.

[redqueen]

5. It's badly worded.

I would have said "people on tumblr don't hate white people, but many people on tumblr are openly hostile to those who don't understand white privilege and racism" (and not coincidentally the people most often trying to claim white privilege doesn't exist, or that 'reverse racism' is a thing, are white).

[Kurska]

11. Very badly worded and it undermines the entire point of the thing.

I guarantee if this comic was even halfway to convincing a white person of anything, that line would probably undue any progress made.

[redqueen]

17. And that says it all, really. People of color experience oppression every day of their lives.

Every. single. day.

A privileged, entitled, not-sincerely-interested-in-learing-a-damn-thing white person gets their fee fees hurt from one badly worded line and suddenly it's all ALL PROGRESS IS LOST I'M IGNORING YOU NOW LA LA LAAAA SHUT UP!

(And this was written by a white person!)

Must be nice to have hurt feelings at badly worded sentences be such an enormous insult that you take your toys and go home. Must mean you don't have all that much experience at being hurt on the basis of your skin color.

[Kurska]

25. Uhh yeah

See this is what I'm convinced so many people on tumbler do not get and I'm afraid you're demonstrating a perfect example of this.

When you put out an unconvincing message that makes people doubt your side, that isn't the fault of the person you're trying to convince, that is your fault. We exist in a society with a free exchange of ideas and if you're ever going to convince people of hard truths they would rather not believe, then you need to maintain the highest level of communication. Mocking the very people you claim to want to convince is the beyond counterproductive.

I'm a gay jew, I'm intimately familiar with what prejudice feels like. Hilarious that you presume to know so much about me and me background.

[redqueen]

29. I think this is a generational divide.

I've seen a lot of older people touting the 'be nice to your oppressors and eventually they'll learn' line.

I disagree with that line of reasoning, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Kurska]

36. I'm 22 and I've noticed that younger people are far nicer to people of other races than older people

So I guess I'm noticing the opposite thing.

It isn't a line of reasoning it is a basic understanding of the process of persuasion. You don't get to "disagree" with basic standards of rhetoric you either adopt them or you fail to present a convincing argument.

[redqueen]

39. Yeah, you're noticing a different thing indeed.

I get to disagree with your opinions, and I don't need your permission to do so.

[Kurska]

46. So your "opinion" is that insulting your audience is a valid and success tactic for persuasion.

There is a science to persuasion, ignore it at your own peril.

[redqueen]

49. She made a throwaway comment about tumblr.

Tumblr is a website, you know.

I'm sure you're aware that a website cannot hate people.

You and one other person are trying sooooooo hard to claim that one sentence is so insulting, when the structure of the sentence itself demonstrates its sarcasm.

It's ... well ... interesting to watch.

[LittleBlue]

54. Tumblr is a social networking website

She does not mean the site itself hates white people, but that the users do. You must really think people are dumb.

Your cringeworthy attempts to explain this racism away are hilarious though, keep going I need a laugh.

[Kurska]

57. Websites can not hate people, but the people who make up a website can.

There is nothing about stormfront's code that makes it racist it is the people who go there that are racist.

I don't really know if tumblr hates white people. I don't go to tumblr because it is mostly composed of a series of echo chamber with endless head patting and hugboxing. Such an environment is intellectually stifling. Compare that to DU where, even though you're expected to be a democrat, the diversity of opinion is truly staggering.

"the structure of the sentence itself demonstrates its sarcasm. "

Um... what?

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. You must not listen to comedians much....people are much more thick skinned than you give them

credit for in my opinion.

[nomorenomore08]

313. +1

Even being white myself, I always found black comedians' digs at white people hilarious, from Pryor on down...

[VanillaRhapsody]

325. Yes it seems there are some that are just too damn sensitive...

and others that think that most people are...

[nomorenomore08]

326. Everybody assumes their individual "setting" is the default. Which is another reason for denying

the existence of privilege - the effects are literally invisible to some folks. Most of whom, I have to guess, don't have a great number of nonwhite friends or in-laws.

[VanillaRhapsody]

328. Yep I think you are exactly right....I know alot of White people that would deny their priviledge...

literally invisible...they cannot for a second think that some of their good fortune is a result of it...

[nomorenomore08]

329. And maybe their lives really do suck, for reasons beyond their control. That, I can sympathize with.

What I can't sympathize with is using their shitty circumstances to deny ingrained racism, because the next step after that is blaming minorities not just for their own problems, but white folks' problems as well. Witness the ridiculous comments anywhere you look, about white people now being the persecuted ones in "Obama's America." It's pure unreasonable (and racist) paranoia.

[Soundman]

166. I agree 100%

I see this with my son (who is around you age) and his friends and acquaintances.

[Eleanors38]

290. HO! You got that right. nt

[whathehell]

211. So do women..

Every. single. day.

[redqueen]

226. Yep. nt

[El_Johns]

277. I'm a woman, & I don't think so. When I experience oppression, it's mostly on the basis of income

and class, not my gender, generally.

[whathehell]

294. I don't know how old you are, but other than lack of life experience, I would say you're

either just lucky or not very "conscious". I, myself, was unconscious of my disrespected status as a female until I
was twenty one years old.

It actually took an older male friend of mine, and attendance at a "consciousness raising" session in the early Seventies to make me realize the shit I'd been accepting as "just the way things are".

[El_Johns]

297. I'm old enough to have been working in the 70s. I'm the daughter of a working class mother

who went to college in the 50s.

I didn't say I hadn't experienced "oppression" as a female qua female. I said I'd seldom experienced it, & that I have been more likely to experience on the basis of my class, income & job.

Yeah, it took me a while to wake up to that reality, too. Because there is a bit less "advertising" about that oppression, which is daily & deep-rooted.

[whathehell]

306. I'm old enough to have been working in the late 60's and I'm also the daughter of

working class parents.

Can I ask what your "class, income and job" are.

[boston bean]

13. a sarcastic remark that mimics what they have experienced, from white people feel about this

issue, is not reverse racism, or black supremacy! Jessum Chrissum.

I can't stand it when those types of fallacious arguments are made.

[Kurska]

30. Didn't seem sarcastic to me, it seems like an explanation for a phenomenon (a poor one). n/t

[LittleBlue]

18. No kidding

More piss poor flamebait.

Pro tip: If you want to "educate" white people, don't let on that you hate them.

[boston bean]

19. That is not what it meant.

[LittleBlue]

22. "The reason tumblr hates white people is because we're ignorant"

Just sounds like any other racial generalization to bash a race.

Whoever wrote this needs the education more than his/her target audience.

[Scootaloo]

125. "Bwaaaaaw, the TONE isn't right! BWAAAAAAAWWWWW!"

The only problem I see is that the "target audience" is perfectly content in its ignorance and isn't going to respond to anything no matter what.

Phrase it nicer, and the response is "yeahbutnotme!"
Phrase it sharper, and the response is "BWAAAAAW!"

[LittleBlue]

169. Boo hoo

People began objecting to racial stereotyping and the thread didn't go the way you wanted... THEY DON'T GET IT THEY AREN'T LISTENING WAAAAAAHHHHH...

[redqueen]

20. This is NOT flame bait. And this was written by a white person.

And any idiot could tell by reading this that she does not hate white people.

FFS. Could you possibly be trying any harder?

[LittleBlue]

26. Could you?

You seem desperate for flame wars. Posting some justification for why Tumblr hates a certain racial group is divisive and racist itself.

Sorry, you couldn't be more transparent

[brush]

257. Pls leave it alone. The horse is dead already

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The sentence, written by a white person, was meant to get attention.

I'm sure the writer assumed that MOST people would understand that and not take it at face value, while digesting the whole of the post.

[Kurska]

27. No she said Tumbler hates white people.

Then acts as if that is a valid state of existence brought on white people by their ignorance. If anyone hates anyone because of the color of their skin, then that is the flaw in the person hating not the hated group.

[redqueen]

31. As I said, badly worded sentence, referring to a meme on tumblr which you're obviously ignoring

despite the fact that I explained it in the OP.

It's sad seeing people strain at gnats while swallowing elephants.

[Kurska]

37. The point of this piece was to be persuasive.

If there is some tumbler specific context to this that makes it seems less egregious, than it should have been included with the piece. Without it it frankly just looks bizarre.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. K&R. Absolutely correct.

I hope you remember these markers of privilege the next time we're discussing gender privilege.

[redqueen]

9. Please start a different OP about 'female privilege'.

Please, please, please, please, please.

[Major Nikon]

88. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024276345#post56

[BainsBane]

43. There is a concept called intersectionality

that explores ways in which class, race and gender interact. The existence of white privilege doesn't not negate male privilege. The odd thing is that you are intent on denying the latter, despite all evidence to the contrary. It defies logic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. I'm familiar with it.

It's an exercise by which, for instance, one can observe the fact that blacks are 6 times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and use that fact as demonstrative of the bias against women, who are one-eleventh as likely to be incarcerated as men.

Or to prove evidence of bias toward men who, like blacks, are more likely to be given a harsher sentence for a given crime.

Or to advocate for more scholarships for women because a 2:1 advantage in that regard isn't enough to mitigate their collegiate oppression of women, and if we could only find a man on campus, we'd tell him so.

What "intersectionality" really is, is a mechanism by which oppression against women is argued by conflating very real white privilege with ambiguous at best arguments for male privilege. The more the two concepts are intertwined the less credibility either gets.

[Major Nikon]

170. There you go with the facts again

Every metric given for white privilege also supports female privilege. Furthermore every single metric for white privilege becomes even more exacerbated when male and black intersect. Very telling that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

232. Yes.

"Look how much disadvantage that racial minorities have! You can measure it in X, Y and Z! Imagine how much worse it must be for women of color!"

The starting premise is that female oppression and disadvantage is pervasive (but apparently unmeasurable) and compounded by the measurable, tangible, demonstrable and obvious disadvantages that people of color, umm... share with men.

Racism, in this self-centered world view, is really important... because it shows that some women really are disadvantaged and oppressed. Unexamined is the degree to which those women suffer relative to their male racial peers.

It's an angle.

Life expectancy at age 65


College enrollment as % of HS graduates

[Pretzel_Warrior]

203. I don't appreciate you hijacking this thread for your own pet issues

WAHAHhhhhAaa!!!!! Us white guys have it so rough!!!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

222. Is it your thread?

If you don't want it discussed, encourage its co-owner to post it somewhere other than GD.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

248. she's discussing white privilege. Something you clearly agree with--but choose to sidetrack

with your "males are poor pathetic victims of western society" garbage.

[lumberjack_jeff]

295. It isn't a sidetrack when it's the OP's intended destination.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4276599

[HappyMe]

10. White men and women have always had it easier.

I think that's pretty much a fact, and I don't know why anybody would think differently.

[redqueen]

14. A lot of people are extremely insistent that their personal situation,

the misfortunes and unfairness that they've experienced as individuals, somehow negate the systemic disenfranchisement and oppression of people of color.

[JustAnotherGen]

16. +1000 nt

[bettyellen]

21. bitter people who cannot see past the bottom of their own pockets. no empathy or even imagination.

completely narcissistic.

[Comrade Grumpy]

160. This from the poster who just called another poster an "underachieving idiot."

Rich. What were you saying about empathy?

[bettyellen]

202. I have no empathy for narcissists, cannot relate to what it is like reducing everything

to what it means to me, and me alone. I sort of pity them, but will not even pay lip service to their self serving bullshit.

[HappyMe]

23. Oh boy.

Personal misfortune - whether self inflicted or foisted on a person - has nothing to do with the widespread oppression of people of color. Maybe they are confusing the word privilege in terms of wealth?

[riqster]

51. That should be an OP.

Brilliantly and concisely stated.

I have had horrible shit happen to me, but because I am a white male, I have had an easier time than a person of color would have had in dealing with the same circumstances.

[redqueen]

56. The same thing was explained in the video about male privilege that was posted recently.

Somehow this very basic message isn't getting through.

Some here might try to claim it's cause the uppity feminists and people of color are soooo meeeean but these subjects have been the topics of dry, reasonable, academic study for decades. Fucking decades.

Eventually you have to stop seeing excuses as valid reasons and just move on, and try to educate those who are actually interested in learning.

[El_Johns]

279. As if these facts were some kind of esoterica that most people don't know, as if they hadn't

been broadcast far & wide in major media since the 1950s, & before.

[ut oh]

142. Hmmmm.....

There are also individuals who's experiences make them more aware of POC's plight, but feel they cannot talk about it because of the above assumption. I'm hesitant to talk about my own experiences on the forum because of the above assumption.

I'm a white male who mostly hung out with black kids growing up (or no one), because I was treated nearly the same (by the other white kids). It never made me feel like it negated the overarching racial issues, I think it made me more aware of them at a younger age.

Also my experience in school, at least, was not one of privilege... I wish... lol

... dam I can't spell today.

[AgingAmerican]

165. And other

...believe that the systemic disenfranchisement and oppression of people of color somehow negates the misfortunes and unfairness suffered by individuals.

[freshwest]

270. +1.

[El_Johns]

278. But the OP is focused on INDIVIDUALS who need to "educate themselves". It doesn't speak

to systemic causes at ALL. Just INDIVIDUALS who are maybe "racist" or "ignorant," as INDIVIDUALS.

And somehow if they "educate" themselves or listen to the Tumblr poster, everything will change like magic.

I just think it's kind of vacuous.

[progressoid]

12. I have no idea what the tumblr reference is

since I don't...tumbl. But the message is still good.

I've had to explain this to other white people and they look at me like I'm crazy. It's the 21st century! Racism is over!

[redqueen]

15. "since I don't...tumbl"

It is startling how many still don't get it, isn't it?

[Laelth]

24. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Shandris]

28. Yes, everyone has 'privilege'. That's what makes it a bunk concept.

Unless, of course, you're going for 'privilege points' by claiming to be the -most- oppressed. But why would someone do that, other than to either A) seek attention or B) try to shut people up by claiming to be more oppressed and, hence, unquestionable?

I believe the proper term for all this 'my privilege your privilege' is intersectionality. I suppose we could come up with a 'points chart' to cover intersectional privilege (and I've seen several), but until you come up with one that accurately reflects most categories of privilege, playing the 'XXXXX privilege' card is bunk.

As a side note, I -do- wonder why we don't hear people decrying their Attractiveness privilege. It is, bar NONE, the most powerful of the set after all. But that might hit a little too close to the truth for some people, I suppose. Instead, it's -far- easier to say that poor white trash is more privileged than attractive people of color, attractive muslims, and so on.

But yes. There -is- a white privilege. Thanks, I suppose, for pointing this out.

[redqueen]

34. "attractiveness privilege"

You're seriously claiming that people are deemed unattractive, and they face institutionalized oppression due to this arbitrary, subjective determination - that somebody somewhere made, apparently.

Yeah, I'm just gonna stop there.

[Shandris]

38. As someone who has posted her picture/likeness on the site before...

...I kind of figured you would.

You have to be a -very- special category of blind to think there isn't a fundamental deference granted to the attractive. How does that phrase go....'when you have privilege, youre blind to it'? Well, I admitted quite handily to my white privilege.

But that's okay. Dismiss me. Dismiss the obvious evidence -all around you-.

[redqueen]

42. Oooh, stalkery.

I never said that attractive people don't get privilege on the basis of their looks.

However, there is no comparison to the racism and sexism. The fact that you think there is means I don't have anything more to say to you so have a good one.

[Shandris]

50. Stalkery? Because I have a good memory?

This is why people have trouble with you Redqueen. You put words and phrases in people's mouths and intentionally try to misconstrue what someone has said. And you do it in thread after thread after thread. Just because someone hasn't pointed it out to you personally doesn't mean they haven't observed it repeatedly. It's sad...you often have a ton of good points.

A good memory. Stalkery. That's got to be one for the record books, though. Classic mudslinging. And here I thought we were fighting -against- that?

And yes, it's can be stronger than racism and sexism both in terms of privilege bestowed. It isn't always, but -no- privilege is always categorically better in every single possible situation.

At either rate, you can think what you want. But you won't call me a stalker just because one can't help but see your name all over these kinds of threads.

[redqueen]

53. I don't recognize your name. I don't remember interacting you with you, years ago, when

I was posting pictures.

For you to bring that up now, making this discussion personal in the process - maybe you don't see a problem with that.

IMO it stinks.

Enjoy your quest to prove that the bias against 'unattractive' people is more oppressive than racism or sexism.

And again, have a great day.

[Shandris]

87. I've been here since before the Iraq War

I just didn't post for a very, very long time and there are large gaps in my 'attendance' record due to circumstances beyond my control. I just have a good memory on a lot of things; its been my one big gift in life.

And I brought it up -only- in the context of 'privilege blindness'. No, I didn't see it as something unfair or problematic. Since you did, I apologize for that. It wasn't my intent to make anything lastingly personal.

However, science has shown us that what I'm talking about (the existence of attraction privilege) is true. The most basic observational skills will tell you likewise. You can feel free to Google up research on the bias shown towards people considered conventionally attractive. No single privilege is going to make a difference in the conversation about privileges. No pair of privileges is going to make a difference. It's only when you get to the intersectionality of -all- privileges that you're going to start seeing real, noticeable and actionable trends as well as a robust conversation about the things that inform our society and culture.

Until then it's just going to be more tripe about how male white people have life on 'easy mode', completely overlooking the details that make all of our theories work together.

You have a great day also.

[Vinnie From Indy]

158. And you are absolutely correct.

There are many forms of privilege and they are not unique to western culture.

Cheers!

[Kurska]

41. Actually several empirical studies have found that attractive people are more likely to get a job.

To get promotions and to be paid better for their work.

So yeah, attractive people do have a systematic advantage in society.

[redqueen]

44. Wow, you too?

Wait no I'm not surprised at all.

[Kurska]

52. Here I go, bringing science into this

http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereotype

You're wrong. There are major advantages to being physically attractive in our society. They have been well documented by social psychologists for decades. To deny that is just as foolish as denying that there are benefits to being a majority group member in our society.

[redqueen]

59. I'm just going to start ignoring you and Little Blue in this thread.

The topic is white privilege.

Congratulations on successfully finding a few ways to derail the conversation. I'll stop replying as if these little side discussions are actually made in good faith.

Have a great day.

[Kurska]

62. It is really revealing

how some people react when presented with empirical scientific evidence of their being absolutely and positively wrong. Clearly this doesn't require an examination of their own attitudes, but it just means that I wasn't communicating in good faith.

"How dare you post scientific articles to back up your point! You're not allowed to show people I'm wrong."

[redqueen]

68. As I said before (which you chose to ignore) I know that attractive people are privileged.

It is the idiotic conflation of that privilege with the institutionalized privilege afforded to non-minority groups which makes this particular derailing effort egregiously stupid.

If you want to discuss 'attractiveness privilege', start a thread about it - and please do point out how it's exactly the same as white privilege and male privilege. That'd be great, thanks.

[Kurska]

90. Wait I thought you were done talking to me?

I feel honored that you continue to grace me with your presence.

"It is the idiotic conflation of that privilege with the institutionalized privilege afforded to non-minority groups which makes this particular derailing effort egregiously stupid. "

Um why? They both appear to be systematic and wide spread throughout society. They can both have life shattering consequences for the person disadvantage in terms of livelihood and employment. Both are empirically observed and their existence is scientifically demonstrated.

Just because you don't appear to like people talking about that form of privilege doesn't mean we're going to stop doing it. Attractive people do in fact have massive and enduring advantages over unattractive people in a variety important areas.

No one ever claimed that white privilege and being attractive are the same, people were claiming they are similar. Just like how straight privilege and white privilege aren't the same, but similar.

I find it concerning how dismissive you are to the plight of people deemed unattractive by our society. Empathy is the ally of all humanity.

[treestar]

74. When it comes to attractive women though

it brings up a whole new set of issues. How are they being "benefitted?"

Sure, attractive people have it better, no doubt, but that has little to do with feminism and doesn't mean attractive women are somehow better off than average looking men.

Women get judged more on their attractiveness than men do. That's part of male privilege.

[Kurska]

92. "Women get judged more on their attractiveness than men do" Very much so

Which is all the more reason that attractiveness privilege should be a major concern to feminists. It does hurt every group though and I think it is a topic worth addressing.

[bettyellen]

93. I benefitted by my boss wanting to fuck me, and firing me when I didn't agree to.

That was awesome.

[Kurska]

100. That is very very sad

I really wish people could leave their libido outside of the work environment.

[bettyellen]

112. yeah, he had a wife and a "mistress" already, so I did not expect that.

and it was a shitty job anyway, too many bosses, all who brought their personal crap into the office and all who lied to each other. I had seen a lot of dysfunction, but they took the cake.
but yeah, when I turned him down he said "You should not have said no", and that was it. Fired by someone who was not my boss that Friday, when they were all out of the office. At least they were ashamed, right?

[Kurska]

120. Very disgusting situation

Did you ever consider filing a lawsuit?

[bettyellen]

192. not really, there were no witnesses. anyone who worked there would probably lie for the boss

because he was a co-owner. and word would get around and it would be super difficult to get a job after that. it would likely ruin my career.

i do not believe in karma, but he did have a bad stroke several years later that had to put the kibosh in his lothario act. he saw me once and followed me out of a restaurant to, I guess, apologize. I kind of out ran him. It's not like I could ever say it was okay, you know? not going to ease his conscience over that. i needed that paycheck. I ended up only freelancing for quite a few years after that, and am lucky I didn't need health insurance those years.

[awoke_in_2003]

213. Sorry to hear that...

some people just don't get it.

[treestar]

230. That's what I was thinking, the "advantage"

for really attractive women would be a lot more harassment and unwanted attention and little attention paid to ability in the job, etc.

[redqueen]

240. And then there's the stigma that any job they get they don't deserve,

that they only got it cause they're attractive.

[bettyellen]

252. I recall a few people tell me they were very surprised to find out that I was very smart

and/ or competent. which kind of shocked me because I was a geeky/ shy/ late bloomer type and well, who admits that they are pigeon holing you to your face, anyway? So weird.

[bettyellen]

256. I was told I must have thought "highly of myself" (conceited) if I thought I got too much attention.

That was a DUer I knew pretty well, thought we were friends, and now am just disgusted with after such a shitty comment. another DUer said I must be really jealous that I didn't get as much attention as other women. because somehow, they were both idiotic enough to assume my self worth has ANYTHING to do with what random dudes on the street think of me. Ha, not for a minute, not ever.

[NoOneMan]

95. There are a few studies on this

Empirical studies of intergenerational social mobility have found that women are more mobile than men. To explain this finding, we describe a model of multi-trait matching and inheritance, in which individuals’ attractiveness in the marriage market depends on their market and non-market characteristics. We show that the observed gender differences in social mobility can arise if market characteristics are relatively more important in determining marriage outcomes for men than for women and are more persistent across generations than non-market characteristics. Paradoxically, the female advantage in social mobility may be due to their adverse treatment in the labor market. A reduction in gender discrimination in the labor market leads to an increase in homogamy in the marriage market, lowering social mobility for both genders.

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/44623/


I found that to be interesting. Are they saying that the general knowledge that women are discriminated against manifests into men caring less about a woman's socioeconomic status when marrying (and more about their attractiveness)? And then it would be the opposite for women I would assume

[YoungDemCA]

300. +1

I don't always agree with you, but this is a very good post.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

221. Attractive people DO often get privilege.

Why do you think movie actors and actresses tend to be very attractive people? Maybe because the audience wouldn't care as much for unattractive actors/actresses?

[treestar]

293. That's are rare career

And the women in it may suffer all kinds of things on the way to the top.

People are getting more interested in people who can act rather than just look pretty, and we are seeing less gorgeous actors now.

[hughee99]

78. I disagree, the wealth privledge is by far the most powerful,

but it's not really related to this thread.

[Shandris]

89. Ehh, yeah I can definitely see that argument.

Wealth is a terribly strong one also.

[Laelth]

86. Excellent post.

Yes, winning the attractiveness lottery means a heck of a lot. Winning the wealthy family lottery, though, is even better.

What's important to realize is the degree to which blind luck made most of us what we are.

-Laelth

[boston bean]

99. Those points are on an individual level, not a group level. So in fact, it was not all that great

a post.

[Shandris]

101. That's because group identity politics is a suicidal game that...

...I don't engage in any more than humanly possible. While there obviously are -some- group tendencies that have to be engaged and defeated, the best method of group subversion is "one at a time". Running around attacking every group who may have a cross-purpose with us will only tire us out and cost us individual people who could have reinforced us. It's a losing strategy in the long run.

To see this principle in action, consider this question: "How did we win the right to vote?" Was it by attacking every single person who was in the opposite group, or was it by wearing down objections by individual members until we were no longer the minority?

[boston bean]

103. If you want to think that acknowledging a privilege is

attacking every group of persons, that is for you to do. How we won the right to vote was by explaining these things over and over and over and over and over, until it finally broke through. No one just sat back on their hands and waited for the right to vote. They were agitating for a change and explaining these concepts that many people found to be just oh so insulting!

[Shandris]

111. I think demanding that there are only certain privileges that matter...

...and those only matter when dealing with groups, and demanding that everyone else agree with that is a blind strategy that will cost us more than it gains us. The intersection of privilege and demonstrations of how it works in an individual person's life is how we bring people to relate to it, not simply by saying "You have privilege!" over and over. Much like you say about the right to vote, 'we explained these concepts...'. Yes, we did. And we explained them in terms of how it would directly affect people's lives -- the same thing I advocate doing now, and the same thing that is overlooked by group-only identity.

[boston bean]

138. No one is demanding there is only 1 kind of privilege.

But you have to determine if the privilege is institutional. I think that is where you difference with RQ comes into play.

You can speak about each privilege by itself, but there can be more than one privilege one holds. If you insist on segmenting them versus on an individual level, you won't ever fully grasp the concept.

[Shandris]

173. I think -- and do correct me if I'm wrong here -- that we're just barely speaking past each other...

...on something. I -completely- agree that a person can have more than one privilege. I -absolutely- do not want to segment them out. Rather, I think that we have to examine them -all-, rather than ones that are conveniently broken into the largest groups, for the theory to hold substantive instructional and theoretical value. Think of them in terms of packages; 'straight white male' is an obvious, common package. But there are more (as you rightly say) than just those privileges. There are subcategories that, while they do make a less convenient 'target', make for a more nuanced and informed dialogue -about- privilege in the first place. There are disabled straight white males and abled straight white males (for instance). There are wealthy disabled straight white males and poor disabled straight white males. Each additional intersection in the 'privilege package' makes for a perhaps substantial alteration in the experience of that individual person. It's why so many people have problem seeing (again, for example) 'white male privilege'. WM privilege means little when you are disabled and poor, and is outright offensive to hear someone who is abled and relative wealthy going on about.

I think, in the long run, all privileges are institutional by definition. They impact our lives and the direction of choices we make. Our institutions were built on the expectations of 'normality' as defined by the most common intersection of privileges (for instance, America was built by landowning abled educated wealthy charismatic straight white males of lineage). This makes them institutional by default imo.

[sufrommich]

106. "identity politics"

That's a conservative construct used by conservatives sneering at minority groups and union members. Your contention that we won the vote by being nice ladies to the people who didn't want us to vote is equally laughable.

[Shandris]

113. You can claim it's a construct all you want, that's fine. You can even attribute it to...

...whomever you'd like.

What you won't do is put a phrase in my mouth that I didn't say. It's 'laughable' because that's not what I said. Imagine that.

[gollygee]

128. Attractiveness privilege is not the most powerful of the set

and in fact there's a relationship with how pretty people see people and what color they are. The standards of beauty are based on white people and that's part of white privilege.

Attractiveness privilege exists but it isn't a generational thing that oppresses an entire community the way racism does.

[Shandris]

175. I'll definitely grant that it's not generational, and I in no way meant to imply that it is.

The standards of beauty, however, are based on what people find beautiful. I'm willing to stipulate (for lack of personal study and knowledge) that the standards of beauty are based on white people, although math seems to have a lot to do with it also symmetrically speaking.

I've noted upthread that I can see arguments that it's not the strongest, and in a -generational- term the idea would indeed be silly.

[Shandris]

207. Get thee out of here, demon!

I'm pretty sure if you add able, educated, wealthy and straight that you might bring about the apocalypse!

Or, you could do good with all those powers, in which case I'd accuse you of being George Clooney.

[awoke_in_2003]

214. I am a straight male...

but I have to say, that dude is too damn good looking.

[awoke_in_2003]

217. Very true on Depp, too...

I have enjoyed movies from both of these guys. Hell, I have even gotten into post-Titanic Leo.

[awoke_in_2003]

220. I need to watch that one soon...

he really came out strong starting (for me) with the Aviator.

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. What's the point of this? What action should be taken?

[redqueen]

35. The point is to explain what white privilege is.

It is to provide some resources for people to use in discussions of white privilege.

The action to be taken is to make sure people are aware that racism isn't just about separate fountains and slavery. It exists here and now and people of color need allies to help counter it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

48. What would we do without you to educate us?

[msanthrope]

94. We'd be forced to find our own facile, poorly reasoned harangues with bad graphics. nt

[opiate69]

231. snork!

[jeff47]

205. Just be aware of it.

It's not something that any individual can "fix". The best you can do is to try and remember it exists, and that it may be coloring your opinions and interactions with others. Take a half-second to think about if it is, and alter those opinions/interactions if necessary.

[El_Johns]

280. And if I do that, will fewer black men go to jail? Will they be more likely to get jobs?

No, because I don't make decisions about who goes to jail and who gets jobs.

Basically, the point is I should adopt the au courant phrase for what used to be called "discrimination" & be viewed as certain groups getting "less than" the norm. Now it is styled as my "privilege" as a white person not to be in jail.

[nomorenomore08]

321. Not in any immediate sense. That's the frustrating thing, how little power we have individually.

Said lack of power also makes it easy to deny the existence of white privilege, or male privilege, though taking it that far would certainly be misguided.

[Aerows]

33. People still use Tumblr? n/t

[sufrommich]

40. Oh My God,now even stating the obvious

about white privilege is considered "flamebait??? WTF????

[redqueen]

45. Yep.

Ain't it great?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. yep.

and posting recipes in threads about subjects talking about feminism is -cool- and not at all a diversionary tactic but, being sarcastic to the person doing it will get your post alerted and left to stand 2-4.

[ScreamingMeemie]

63. That made me want to vomit when I saw it last night.

I wish some people who post here would just burn out on their self-promotion already.

and...

Happy New Year!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. thank You for Understanding and Getting IT ... sheesh ...

to think that people on here did NOT get it

and Happy New Year to U2

can you imagine if guys were sitting around talking about ANYTHING and a woman came into the conversation and out of left field totally changed the subject to talking about a recipe ???
You know damn good and well she would have been dismissed with the exact same tone I used in that thread.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME.

[ScreamingMeemie]

75. It was insane.

But he thinks he's so fucking funny.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. and the women in there that catered to his humor ...

barf. puke. and throw up.

Perhaps it is sexist of me to hold my gender to a higher standard but, I do. I.just.do.

I have to keep reminding myself how pervasive is the culture and that some women have benefited from the benevolent patriarchal society and I should be more understanding of their ignorance but. DAMN. I expect better from supposedly DEMOCRATIC WOMEN on a DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE BOARD.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME.

[msanthrope]

102. How lucky we will be when you are more understanding of the "ignorance" of other women. nt

[polly7]

107. Exactly how some of us see you after your comments about women here

being old dogs that live only for a pat on the head, because only you are able to think independently, those who disagree with you are just pathetic man-pleasers incapable of having and using original thought.

Star Member Tuesday Afternoon (49,248 posts)
134. I knew you would. and Truly -- you are most welcome.

You deserve it.

that you can continue to laugh at simple old jokes and enjoy being petted by these men.

sort of like their old pet dog, reminds me.

the picture I have of you in my mind when I see you posting.

a good old hunting dog. loyal. pet. pet. good doggie. here let me throw you another morsel ...

lord. You crack me up.

haha. Hilarious. truly LMAO over her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4120434

barf. puke. and throw up.

DAMN. I expect better from supposedly DEMOCRATIC WOMEN on a DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE BOARD.

[msanthrope]

119. Polly, we are being name-called because they have not reason on their side.

In their campaigns to educate us all, they have revealed themselves. January 6 will be an interesting day.

[polly7]

140. They sure have.

I see what is happening now exactly as I saw it when some in that group lost 'their' group to someone who didn't believe in insulting and alienating progressive people here who in no way deserved that kind of vitriol.

Once someone's shown how hateful they're capable of being to people who are already on their side, whether they believe it or not, I pretty much have no use for anything else they have to preach about.

And ..... how insulting is it to think that by googling up the worst possible shit one can find on your pet topic you're in any position to 'educate' anyone? That blows my mind.

[msanthrope]

159. What, you didn't get educated by Tumblr? It's like a PhD on flashcards.

As for the third group creation....I was pretty indifferent until I got a copy of the pm that was the result of one poster trolling the mental health forum for 'dirt' on a 'rival.'

[polly7]

177. LOL! No, but the pictures were ok!

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry you had to see that pm, what an awful time here.

On edit, I had seen the "Brown-eye, blue-eye experiment" videos a few months ago and thought they were fantastic, and something everyone should see.

[RainDog]

251. don't forget the intellectual gigantism on display here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4261777

the whole performance is a great big WTF, which several people, women included, noted.

[Sissyk]

258. Two guesses and the first doesn't count.......

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Sun Jan 5, 2014, 01:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

don't forget the intellectual gigantism on display here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4278098

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Do we really need DUers mocking the intelligence of other DUers in threads? This is starting to look like a scene from Mean Girls.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 5, 2014, 01:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The intelligence of other DUers was not being mocked, only their pretensions. And with all of the hostility in this thread, this is pretty mild stuff. Any alerter who focused on this post and didn't alert on half the other posts in this thread makes me wonder.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'd say you are one of those mean girls. Just sayin. This is a very bogus alert. It was posted on this board already. People post things from other posters every fucking day.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: well ...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[RainDog]

259. LOL

Did you read that thread? Read the whole thing. It's very entertaining in a wtf kinda way.

[Sissyk]

260. Yes, I read it. Definitely a WTF moment.

FYI, I was not the alerter. I was not the lone hide, either. lol!

[In_The_Wind]

261. At Sun Jan 5, 2014, 01:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

At Sun Jan 5, 2014, 01:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

don't forget the intellectual gigantism on display here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4278098

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Do we really need DUers mocking the intelligence of other DUers in threads? This is starting to look like a scene from Mean Girls.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 5, 2014, 01:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The intelligence of other DUers was not being mocked, only their pretensions. And with all of the hostility in this thread, this is pretty mild stuff. Any alerter who focused on this post and didn't alert on half the other posts in this thread makes me wonder.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'd say you are one of those mean girls. Just sayin. This is a very bogus alert. It was posted on this board already. People post things from other posters every fucking day.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: well ...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[RainDog]

262. to quote someone on that thread...

Marr (15,128 posts)
129. That instant rant was just bizarre.

His point was clear and quite difficult to construe as an attack on a gender.

ranting at a woman that she doesn't understand what it's like to be a woman... yeah, that was bizarre too.

[In_The_Wind]

265. I understand how it feels to be a woman here on DU.

[img][/img] [img][/img]

[RainDog]

266. more like

[In_The_Wind]

267. Yep!

[img][/img]





[img][/img]

[one_voice]

110. I would like to address this...

Yes, there were women in that thread that laughed. Many of those same women also talked about the issue in the OP--disagree with them or not on the subject they did--as well as other things.

It's possible to have done both. There have been a lot of threads recently that went way off the rails could be just trying not to get to that point. I don't know, I can't answer the question as to why that poster posted that.

This:

I have to keep reminding myself how pervasive is the culture and that some women have benefited from the benevolent patriarchal society and I should be more understanding of their ignorance

is just wrong in my opinion. Because someone acts differently in a situation or not as you would have doesn't make them ignorant. The nastiness of this and the 'pets/dog' comments are the reason you get recipes on a thread.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think we can have good conversations about WOMENS issues while you're basically calling them the 'b' word (you called Riff a dog, she's female) and then here calling people ignorant.

Who wants to be called ignorant dogs by- and I will quote you here-

supposedly DEMOCRATIC WOMEN on a DEMOCRATIC MESSAGE BOARD.

I'm a woman and I damn sure didn't benefit from any patriarchal society. Not the way I grew up. No white man would lift a finger to help my family--cops left my mom to be beaten, men spit on her, etc. So your generalizations are hurtful, demeaning, and just plain nasty.

You may think it's okay, but it isn't. The women these comments were/are directed wouldn't take it from a man, so it makes it that much worse that it's coming from a woman that is supposed to be on the same side.

[Violet_Crumble]

180. I didn't realise that as a woman I'd be judged based on what I do and don't respond to at DU...

See, I did participate in that sub thread, and I wasn't expecting to see an attack on those of us who did based solely on our gender. What I do and don't respond to and how I respond to it is none of yr business, and it's posts like yrs that attack any woman at DU who doesn't agree with you that has me avoiding discussing feminism at DU. And before anyone pops up with that 'oh, not that tone argument again!' nonsense, this isn't about 'tone'. It's about being downright rude and abusive to anyone who doesn't fall into line with whatever you think...

[RiffRandell]

236. Seriously?

You are a woman and called me (a woman) a DOG for laughing at men's jokes, and PLENTY of posters have seen and were disgusted by it.

You have created your own situation here at DU3 which "is different" and I don't envy you ONE BIT.

Thank you to all of my supporters, a lot of whom I don't even know but they have witnessed enough about you to see your hypocrisy and call you out on it while defending me.

[redqueen]

70. And feminists who are soooooo upset about threads not being honestly discussed

somehow miss all those posts, but then attack me for calling out the statement that white privilege doesn't exist.

Well, one feminist anyway.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. DU3 ... is a different world ... not saying it is better or worse. Just Different.

[Thegonagle]

144. It's worse. nt

[AgingAmerican]

47. Those evil white people!

...are just so plain ignorant!!

A lot of subtle racism in this cartoon.

[sufrommich]

55. Are you actually using the

"reverse racism" argument? This place has gone nuts.

[Kurska]

58. Is hating white people racist? n/t

[sufrommich]

65. Wow,whatever. Posting a cartoon explaining

white privilege isn't racism,no matter how much you try to deflect to one stupid sentence in an otherwise right on target explanation of the privilege. How do you feel about minority quotas for hiring and education? Is that " reverse racism " too?

[redqueen]

72. There have been a lot of posts alluding to racism against white people lately.

And shockingly few people calling it out.

[sufrommich]

82. It's really mind boggling. Frankly,I think there

are just people who are going to disagree with you no matter what you say and how obvious it is.Every day here I see people post memes and cartoons that every liberal agrees with and never do I see the accusations thrown that get thrown at you. When you start getting flack for bringing up white priveledge and it turns into accusations of reverse racism,it's time to stop calling DU a liberal site. I think I need another vacation from here.

[Kurska]

84. I never said it was. I asked a question.

"How do you feel about minority quotas for hiring and education?"

It is a solution to a real problem, but I feel in some ways it might be counterproductive. What if there simply isn't enough qualified minority candidates interested in every single possible field to fill every single program's minority quota? Not all scientific disciplines are equally appealing to people who could be coming from vastly different backgrounds. Some Ph.D. pools might be about 100 applications with only handful from minority backgrounds (I've heard of such pools first hand), of these only half might be qualified for the program in terms of GRE scores and research experience. What do you do in such a situation? Would the quota require you to take in students who wouldn't even be considered if they were white? What kind of effect does inducting a person into a program they aren't prepared for have on them?

[gollygee]

130. .

[Kurska]

152. So, it isn't racist to hate white people?

I'm not getting the point of the video. Apparently the terrible things people's ancestors did makes it not racist if you hate them for it?

Would it not be racist for a Chinese person to hate Japanese people because of the rape of Nanjing, cause that sounds pretty racist to me.

[gollygee]

163. Racism = bigotry + societal power

White people have societal power. So people of color can be bigots, can have prejudices, and can act on them, but they aren't creating institutional kinds of discrimination against white people that affect education, criminal justice, etc. Racism is more than being mean.

[Kurska]

164. So as a white person I have social power over all black people?

Lets explore a hypothetical. A black boss fires a white employee just so that he can bring in a black employee to do the same job. Are you really arguing that action wasn't racist because the employee has some vague form of "social power" over his boss? Despite his boss having the ability to deprive him of his livelihood.

That is the problem with that definition, it takes every black person and white person in this country and groups them into powerful and weak. When in reality a black billionaire is going to carry far more social weight than I ever will. Are you really contending that black people are as a whole are completely devoid of societal power? Granted they have much less relative to their population than they deserve, but they aren't completely devoid of it. It seems to me that if a racism=bigotry+social power than a individual black person with some level of social power would be able to wield it in a bigoted way, which would result in racism.

As a gay person I feel deprived of some societal power, but if I were to harm someone just because they were straight I'd consider myself just as much of a jerk as a straight person hurting me because I'm gay. I don't think being a member of a oppressed minority makes it any less horrible if I were to do something wrong to someone just because of who they are.

[gollygee]

178. Racism isn't about individual actions

Actions can support racism and therefore be racist, but it's bigger than that. It's how our criminal justice system works. How much more difficult it is for people of color to get jobs. That kind of thing. One black person firing one white person only because that person is white would be discriminatory and illegal and wrong, but it would not be a part of holding up the ruling racial caste over the servant racial caste.

[AgingAmerican]

201. but it would be racist...

...if the reason for doing so was because of his/her race.

[Kurska]

210. I'd argue we have a very different definition of racism

Racism is all about the summation of individual actions that disadvantage minorities. I view homophobia the same way.

[nomorenomore08]

320. It's both individual and group actions, and attitudes. And anyone can be prejudiced against another

race but "racism" in the sense we're discussing requires a measure of relative societal power as well.

So no, I don't think it's "okay" for black people to hate white people, though I wouldn't blame them for having a certain amount of distrust. But "reverse racism" as a mass-level, measurable phenomenon simply doesn't exist.

[AgingAmerican]

198. Racism is hatred or intolerance

...of other races, period.

[redqueen]

225. People who still don't get it after seeing that, there is simply no hope of reaching. nt

[AgingAmerican]

146. No

I'm saying that racism is racism in any form. The 'cartoon' is based on stereotypes as are most forms of racism.

[NoOneMan]

61. It would be amazing to see an argument made without simultaneously pissing on people

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. I do not feel "pissed upon."

Do you?

[NoOneMan]

66. Of course not. Im just an ignorant white person (per the cartoon)

I wouldn't know piss from rain.

[ScreamingMeemie]

69. It appears you do feel pissed upon.

How sad and telling.

[NoOneMan]

73. "Telling"?

Ok, HERE we go again. Same thing with the gender battle-rama! If you have issues with racists or prejudice generalizations, YOU are the one with a character flaw!

Look, I generally agree with the entire point of the post. Yet, I still think its ridiculous that it cannot be said without simultaneously alienating the intended audience with a racist generalization against them. If thats "telling", have at it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

77. Not "telling." Telling.

If you didn't feel pissed upon, you wouldn't be here. Happy New Year.

[HappyMe]

85. Maybe that person put that last cartoon frame

in there to make a point. Kind of turn the hate around so people could see how it feels? Or maybe I'm full of it.

[Kurska]

67. Unpossible!

Clearly the only way to communicate is to be derisive and dismissive of your audience, as has been helpfully explained to me in this thread.

[Nye Bevan]

97. For starters I would suggest that she stop referring to black people as "POC's".

And the whole thing is kind of an annoying combination of earnest patronizing and smug self-congratulation.

[msanthrope]

105. I hate that term "POC." It implies the user does not know basic medical terminology. nt

[CFLDem]

255. Same here.

I also find the term to be disrespectful because it reduces people to their color. We don't call white people "people of no color".

How about let's overcome racism by not putting any value on race/ skin color at all.

You know judging solely on content of character and whatnot.

[Jamaal510]

263. The term "people of color" doesn't make much sense

when you get down to it, since all humans are a different shade of brown.

[nomorenomore08]

322. I can see it as a convenient shorthand. Otherwise I agree with you. n/t

[redqueen]

135. Yeah cause all the other people of color aren't oppressed on the basis of their race.

Only black people.

[Nye Bevan]

147. I'm not sure that any race would like to be referred to as "POC's" (nt)

[redqueen]

168. Let us know what term all people of color agree on and we'll use that one instead. nt

[DeadLetterOffice]

199. Could you *be* any more condescending?

If this is your standard debate style, you must be incredibly successful at convincing people of your point of view.


I personally find that having my identity turned into an acronym is off-putting. Makes me feel like the person doing the acronym-ing sees me as less of a unique individual and more of a "them."

But hey, what do I know?

[Shandris]

204. The distinct irony in the usage of 'PoC' is that it, -by definition-, normalizes...

...white as the standard. There is 'white', and there is 'PoC'. So you start a conversation by utilizing the very same privilege that you then expect people to respect you and listen to you talk to them about. ('You' being the generic, of course)

'PoC' aren't even distinct enough -- to the white speaker -- to earn their own individual names. That is Voice suppression.

[DeadLetterOffice]

218. Yes, exactly. Thank you. n/t

[redqueen]

229. WTF are you talking about? "Person of color" was first used by MLK.

It was anti-racism and feminist activists in the 70's who started using the term "people of color" to be more inclusive of all non-white (i.e. racially oppressed) people, as opposed to staying in a mindset where anyone who wasn't either white or black was basically erased from the dialog.

"Voice suppression" ... what a load of bullshit.

[Shandris]

233. Voice suppression is a load of bullshit?

Do keep telling us more about how voices aren't suppressed. I do believe #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was made for that very reason, among others?

"The problem of women’s agency was thus inextricable from the theme of voice. What was at issue was how to discern when women are speaking in their own voices and doing what they really want to do." That would be from Feminist Theories of Agency...inextricably linked with Voice as a concept.

But suppressing Voice doesn't exist. 'K.

(Link: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1541079/feminism-philosophical/284112/Feminist-theories-of-agency#ref1049946 )

[redqueen]

234. You're claiming that the term "people of color" is "voice suppression". That is what is bullshit.

Or "women of color" either (since you seem to want to make this about feminism instead of racism) that is also not "voice suppression".

[Shandris]

237. It is. It is if those people claim it is -- and many of them do -- because...

...our impressions don't overwrite their experience.

I'm not 'making it' about anything. I took issue with your claim that voice suppression was bullshit and delivered an article on a subject I knew was near and dear to you (and many of us). That's not 'making it about feminism'. That's providing evidence that your pithy quote -- that voice suppression was bullshit -- was incorrect. Now you've said that saying that the phrase IS voice suppression is bullshit, which is not identical to what you said earlier. So now I move on to this argument with my response in this posts title -- if they say it's voice suppression, it is.

[redqueen]

238. "They" say it is?

Did you take a vote and decide which terms are acceptable?

Why don't you post some links to some sources which demonstrate that there's a consensus among people of color that the phrase "people of color" is offensive to them. Then I'll consider taking you seriously.

[Shandris]

242. Do you think I care one whit whether or not -you- take me seriously?

If you have turned your eye blindly towards it, that isn't my problem. As they say in many other avenues, it isn't my place to educate you. I don't have a vested interest in making you agree with me; a casual perusal of your debate style shows you do more harm than good to the people I would approach anyway. You're quite happy with labels that group people up (which is no surprise, given your love of broad-brush group labels), and that's fine also. We're not going to agree on everything.

So by all means, don't take me seriously. I mean, it's worked so well every other time you've come after something I said...except that it hasn't.

Have a pleasant evening.

[redqueen]

243. No, it isn't your place to educate me.

I'll keep on networking with the thousands and thousands of anti-racism activists who focus on important issues, and don't try to pretend that the term "people of color" is some huge fucking problem.

You too.

[Shandris]

246. I wish you good luck.

Hopefully between our different strategies we can accomplish more than either of us alone ever could.

[gollygee]

241. I think there's always controversy around what language to use to describe race

And there is disagreement, but that doesn't mean that we just don't talk about these issues and don't discuss race because no perfect language exists that everyone likes. It's still important to discuss racism and race issues regardless of those controversies. Right now "people of color" is a commonly used term, and it's absolutely possible that at some point it won't be a commonly used term because it creates the categories of "white" and "other." I think it's reasonable to express a dislike of the term, but I don't think it's fair to just dismiss all discussion of race because of that controversy.

Sometimes it feels like people use dislike of a term as a way of dismissing the whole discussion.

[Shandris]

244. Absolutely. And here's the thing -- at no point did anyone (that I know of) say that we...

...shouldn't discuss race. All I have stated is that the term is a distinct irony because of the divisions it creates in normalizing white. You've said the exact. same. thing.

I will take it as a matter of faith that your final sentence isn't directed at anyone in particular, given that at no time was such a thing insinuated.

[gollygee]

247. It's more based on history

of former threads, and also discussions outside of DU.

[Shandris]

249. Fair enough.

I figured it was probably something like that; I've found you to be a very reasonable poster in that regards.

[El_Johns]

281. Asian Americans have higher median income and are more educated than white Americans.

They're also less likely to be in prison.

So part of the argument in the OP about "POCs" doesn't hold for that particular group of "POCs".

[JDPriestly]

194. The term People of Color includes more than just African-Americans.

It includes people from South and Latin America who have not only their appearance, their skin color and their names but the fact that many of them are not native English speakers. It also includes Asians and Native Americans, Pacific-Islanders and people of mixed races.

[morningfog]

315. You don't get it. White privilege is unique to whites. Anyone of color is on the

losing end of the deal.

[Lifelong Dem]

109. Then there is good looking privilege

There is good looking privilege which is more than any color gives you as far as privilege. Obama is good looking.

[ScreamingMeemie]

114. I don't even know how to respond to this.

I have seen plenty of "good looking" black men and women get convicted of the crime and sentenced to the max while a good many "average looking" white people manage with a slap on the wrist.

[ScreamingMeemie]

117. Not in this country.

Sorry, but your post made me violently ill.

Trailer trash? Way to go with the stereotyping. I lived in a "trailer" - proudly - for 7 years. The repukes in our district (who sounded amazingly like your post) didn't want my straight-A daughter going to school with their little princes and princesses because she would be a bad influence. My grandparents? Never owned a home and could only manage a "trailer." Does that make them trash?

Way to go.

[Lifelong Dem]

121. Okay, ugly trailer trash

[ScreamingMeemie]

123. Too late to save yourself on this one.

Sorry, but the stats don't support your disgusting claim.

[Lifelong Dem]

126. I didn't say all people living in trailers are trash

Just the ugly dirty ones are trailer trash.

[ScreamingMeemie]

127. Do you think you're funny?

Because it's disgusting.

[Lifelong Dem]

129. Yes some whites are disgusting

[ScreamingMeemie]

131. No sir and/or ma'am, your post is. That's about the sum of it.

I would consider a name change as "lifelong dems" don't tend to be stereotypical AND racist all rolled up in to one package.

[Lifelong Dem]

133. How is what I said racist?

[athena]

139. "White trash" is a deeply racist term.

It's racist against non-whites. Note that there is no equivalent term, "colored trash" or "black trash." The implication is that non-white is by definition trash.

[NutmegYankee]

161. +1

It's either amazing that someone doesn't understand that, or sadly revealing...

[Matariki]

179. Very. For those very reasons. n/t

[RainDog]

200. it's a class-based insult, not race

it distinguishes class and came about from whites speaking about other whites, not blacks.

[gollygee]

132. Honestly

only white people would think attractiveness privilege is a bigger thing than white privilege.

[ScreamingMeemie]

134. +1

I cannot believe that was written on a progressive website.

[Lifelong Dem]

136. Or black

Plenty of good looking blacks who have the same privileges as white in my opinion.

[Ms. Toad]

195. You really might want to spend some time talking with those blacks

you feel are just as privileged as any whites.

Were you not listening to story after story from (relatively) privileged black individuals after Trayvon Martin was shot about the role race has played in their lives?

[LeftyMom]

137. This goes back to white privilege though.

People of color in this society are subject to colorism within their own communities, and a general perception by society at large that attractiveness is measured by the degree one's features resemble those of white people. This is a prejudice which is ingrained very early (for example there have been studies done on toddlers where they are asked which doll they prefer. Both black and white toddlers will pick a white one over a black one in most cases.) Society would be resistant to seeing him as good looking if he were darker, or if his mannerisms were less dorky Midwestern white guy.

[Shandris]

292. Leftymom, I would point to the studies (and they are still somewhat few, but increasing)...

...that show quite the opposite; that the 'dorky Midwestern guy' for instance who is attractive will have his mannerisms overlooked or explained away. Likewise with darker attractive people and so on. When you compare two, you might get one person saying the white attractive person is 'more attractive' than the dark, but -both- of them will be considered more attractive than the person on the street. I would have to seriously question anyone who, for instance, claimed that Morgan Freeman was -less- attractive than, say, Carrot Top even though Carrot Top has far more 'white' features. Now, it's true that the toddlers will typically pick a white one over a black one, but dolls by their nature aren't attractive. In fact, they approach the uncanny valley more than anything else.

Also, I would show the more recent studies that show that the most attractive faces are those that are actually a composite of many including dark ones. Inherently this means that the 'pure white' is not, in fact, the 'best' face. There is a range somewhere still being hammered down systematically, trying to isolate -exactly- what makes us like what we like. Symmetry seems to play the largest part of it, though; math can produce the 'perfect face', as it were. So there's still a lot to learn about the topic; its far too early to point to something that may be mere correlation simply because it makes another theory easier to defend.

I'm not saying it positively -doesn't- go back to White privilege, simply that it is not yet shown that it -does-, either.

[Matariki]

118. "Privilege' is the wrong word

"I still benefit from institutionalized racism and discrimination"

The problem with this is that implies that if *everyone* has equal opportunities and economic and social justice it will somehow take things away from the folks being told they have 'privilege'. That does NOTHING to help people understand the issue and just creates fear and resentment.

People get bogged down on the unfortunate word 'privilege'. It's a word that parents and teachers use to reward or threaten to TAKE AWAY to control behavior.

What we really need to be talking about is how to make society fair for everyone. Make the folks referred to as 'privileged' understand that stuff they take for granted as basic rights are often denied to other groups. And that working to make sure EVERYONE has those rights and access to economic and social justice won't diminish their own rights or resources.

I wish someone would find a better word to communicate the issue.

[El_Johns]

282. +1. And it also carries the implication that things like not being in jail are "privileges".

And it always degenerates into pissing matches about who is most privileged, least privileged -- I can't help feeling that the term as it's used today is intended to divide.

The term has a history and used to be connected to one guy's take on the origins of racism. I never see it used in that context anymore - just this empty, individual "privilege" which we are supposed to acknowledge as individuals and then -- that's it, there isn't anything else.

[Matariki]

124. Also, Tumblr hates white people?

Because they're ignorant?

Really? That's a new one on me

[Matariki]

141. I'd rather see some solutions than read things from 'white people' going on about their privilge

It seems like a popular thing to do these days.

That last panel for instance - "the only way to not be ignorant is to open your eyes to the privilege you have". BUT THEN WHAT? That to me is a far more important and relevant question. I rarely see the discussions on privilege go beyond the demand to admit it exists.

[boston bean]

148. I would assume getting people to see the inequality would be the first step.

Not sure how you make change if no one thinks there is a problem.

[Nye Bevan]

150. Yeah, MLK didn't spend a lot of time passively-aggressively whining about "white privilege".

These screeds are generally penned by richish white folks (who probably actually know few, if any, black people) in an attempt to assuage their vague feelings of guilt but with minimal effort on their part.

[HappyMe]

156. Well, you do have a good point there.

A MLK type leader is definitely what is needed. Bring about change using calm, sensible rhetoric. This kind of change needs to start at home.

[redqueen]

172. As for me I'm not waiting for another MLK to lead us.

I don't see the point in picking apart every individual for every imperfection. And some people enjoy attacking MLK for his imperfections as well, there's always someone with an agenda trying to distract people.

I find it encouraging that young people are actively trying to be allies and addressing others in an attempt to raise awareness.

Other people disagree of course but it takes all kinds.

[redqueen]

171. Then you use your privilege to address inequality.

You check yourself when you fall into old, harmful ways of thinking. You call others out when appropriate.

I seriously did not think it was all that complicated.

I was looking for my post of this video and found this thread. Eventually we will have discussed this enough times that most people will get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017124385

[Matariki]

176. My underlying point is that the word privilege does more harm than good.

"Inequality" might be a better word.

Inequality is something most people would agree is unfair and should be addressed. Unfortunately when many people hear the word privilege they think that it's being suggested they give something up. And most folks feel they have so little to give up as it is, so it seems threatening. I don't disagree with the concept, I just don't think that it's being communicated in a way that is completely helpful.

[gulliver]

174. Yup, the comic is sub-worthless.

I didn't check out the videos because the comic is so bad. Condescending, counterproductive, poorly presented. We are to take its statistics and attitude at face value because why? There are asterisks?

Who is the intended audience for this junk? It is a call to inaction for minorities and deliberately insulting to whites. If Republicans wanted to close white minds and encourage hopelessness in non-whites they could do worse than to just spread this comic around.

Privilege is just another form of wealth, imo. If we want to improve things we need real solutions.

[pretzel4gore]

149. ot but to the point...

i'm an old guy who thinks we 'boomer' generation has dropped the ball, bigtimey, and moreover, i think our daddys' generation, the 'greatest', not only dropped the ball but were fooled into thinking they actually scored a game winning TD! Here's not the time/place to explain the logic of this, but ....in furtherance of it, here's a little story. In the late Victorian era, the Industrial Revolution, science and technology advancements had made wealth alot easier to get for alot more people, and a very robust 'middle class' had emerged in the industrialised nations, especially Britain, USA and N. Europe. This new class wanted to live like the old rich had, and thus for FIRST TIME in history, large numbers of well-to-do people were spending time at the seaside, getting sun tanned. Problem was, some of them got sunburned, so science came to rescue with suntan lotion- see 'Coppertone' etc. Now get this. The companies doing research DICOVERED not only lotions to prevent burning by sun exposure/tanning, but they also stumbled on lotions, hormonal treatments, that effectively, cheaply, reversed the process, iow hormone treatments that 'untanned' the skin. For awhile, this was like hot cakes, and people who were darker skinned then was thought proper were buying lotions that made them whiter over the counter. Indeed, so effective was this that non white people began using it and... blah blah blah...
That was the era of Cecil Roads and theodore rooosevelt, young winnie churchill etc, so you can imagine the horror this caused.
Long story short, the racists bought out the companies making 'untan' lotion and either bought out or killed off any scientist who was involved- they totally blanked out the news stories and have ever since kept the very idea under wraps.
Notice in the 'star trek' and other sci-fi movies, there's never the least mention of genetic alteration of race, because well, the entire edifice of modern political control is built upon racism of a sort. The racist leaders of our society are horrified at the idea that skin colour, like height, weight etc can be subject to genetic alterations. But it obviously is. Indeed, before science figures out how to fix a bunch of diseases like alteimers etc it will go back and rediscover the way to change skin colour, not only from brown or black to white but from white to black, yellow etc!
How they keep this under wraps is an amazing glimpse into how consent is manufactured, but how long can they carry on?
It's fun watching the racist bastards squirm.

[LordGlenconner]

151. Pancakes.

[valerief]

162. A POC has a 542% chance of being a better speller. nt

[darkangel218]

181. I sadly agree.

White privilage still exists.

[ismnotwasm]

182. Somebody explain to me

Why the same folks who whine about feminists are also whining about white privilege? Weird.

[darkangel218]

184. I doubt this topic is related to feminism.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

( not a member of their group)

[ismnotwasm]

209. Only in a macro sense of oppression

You'd think there'd be no relation at all -- in fact feminists of color coined their own word "womanist" because of white privilege within the feminist movement. Still it's weird to see to same people objecting or arguing about the progressive principle of equality-- in any sense.

[darkangel218]

228. I get it now. I didnt think about it in that aspect, but youre right.

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. It should be completely unrelated to feminism.

Except in the sense that individual feminists recognize the privilege that being white confers.

White privilege is easy to see and measure.

[nomorenomore08]

215. Maybe because they were born on second and think they hit a double, so to speak?

Or, alternately, their life circumstances have been shitty enough for them to see themselves as "non-privileged" (even if that isn't quite true).

[JDPriestly]

183. There is a statistic missing.

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

In Los Angeles, I suspect that the percentage odds that a child of color will be placed in foster care is higher than the percentage odds that a white child will be placed in foster care.

I have not seen statistics on this, and I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that is true.

Now, my almost entirely white point of view on this issue:

At least in California, the chance of being born a bi-racial child is higher than since the state joined the union and increasing all the time.

Just a few days ago, I spoke to my mother who is in her nineties. She was talking about all the changes she went through in her life. As a child, she walked, rode a horse or traveled in a horse-drawn buggy to a one-room country school and now we all have cars. She mentioned a few other changes in her life including the civil rights era. That was hard for her because, due to my father's profession serving the poor, she, a white woman, was living iright on the edge of an African-American community and, when there were riots right near her house, she feared for her life. (My father was fearless and a man of God who walked right through the riots in the course of serving God and the poor.) And, finally, she pointed out that several of her granddaughters were in inter-racial or inter-cultural marriages, and so she has great-grandchildren of various racial and ethnic backgrounds and is proud of them all.

So, while there is a strong bias against people of color on the part of people of European descent, and while being white did and still does give you a hand-up, being white and not white-Asian or white-African-American or white-Hispanic or white-Native American is becoming more common and the societal bias will, in time, lessen as the very young generation begins to take on the task of running the world.

Of course, the irony is that now that we have DNA testing, many people who look white and think they are "pure" white are discovering that somewhere in their background, they have ancestors of other races.

So, you are right. Historically, the majority of Americans were of European descent. Following the Middle Ages, European culture, which took from the Greeks and other civilizations the ideas upon which science is based, developed sophisticated technologies and adopted new social and economic organizations that gave it a huge advantage over other cultures. Europeans used that technology to invade. enslave and subjugate countries that did not have that technology most of which were the nations of people of color.

That is why, in the US, whites, Europeans, are born with an edge, culturally, over non-Europeans. It's history. Those of us who are white did not ask for our privileges. They were our birthright just as lacking those privileges is the birthright of people of color. Those are the historical facts. We cannot escape them.

The historical legacy of racism is something we judge harshly today. And people of color should be given more credit for their contributions to the arts, technology and other contributions to society, but it is inescapable fact.

White people cannot right the racial and ethnic wrongs of their ancestors or even of themselves because that history is integral to our society. But gradually, our history and our culture are changing. They are changing thanks both to the pressure from people of color and from the willingness of many, many white people to learn and change. Gradually, more and more people in the younger generation could, frankly, care less about color and ethnicity.

A reality that contributes to the gap in advantages between white people and people of color is that while many children of color are diligent students, and the list of people of color who are respected for their scholarship, knowledge and academic achievements is large and growing, here in LA, a lot of families who are not white do not prioritize education. The exception to that rule are children of Asian and Middle Eastern descent. One of my daughters attended an inner-city school in which the vast majority of students were not white. Her best-ever, beyond outstanding public school science teacher complained to me at a parents' night : "If only these kids would show up for classes, I could teach them." The attitude toward education in non-white communities is improving, and the number of exceptional students in the non-white communities is also increasing. But there is work to be done in truly integrating people of all colors into the culture of learning.

I would so much like to see Obama's goal of free pre-kindergarten education for all American children. Because the best time to inculcate in a child the love of learning and the confidence in his/her ability to learn is in pre-kindergarten. And every pre-kindergarten child deserves to have a book read to him or her every night before bed. Reading is the key to success in our culture. Many children of color are read to, but to many start school without the cultural advantage that bedtime stories provide in terms of learning to figure out causes and effects, learning how to interact with others, learning to think and much more.

The OP may be intended to elicit a mea culpa from all white DUers, but remember, we are all born into different circumstances. That a person is white gives that person an advantage at birth that is enjoyed throughout life, but many, many white people are just as disadvantaged as people of color. Just being white does not always mean a free ride. I remember how I suffered as a child because I liked games and physical activity, but being white did not improve my basketball skills or mean that I would ever be chosen for a team for anything because I was always, always, always the runt in the class. We all have some characteristic that holds us back. It is what we do in spite of that characteristic that makes the difference because we all are born with gifts, and what we do with them makes the most difference. But that is a lesson that has to be learned very young.

Read to children. The stories, the myths that children hear, the lessons drawn from them, are the ingredients of their future thinking and lives.

[darkangel218]

185. +1 million JD.

[darkangel218]

188. White privilage still exists because racism and discrimination still exist.

Its the sad reality.

[cinnabonbon]

191. YES. I was just watching the brown eyes/blue eyes experiment earlier today

because it's such a good way to explain what bullshit that discrimination is built on, and how easy it is to be a part of it. I'm so glad you linked it, because it's an eye opener. (Even if one of the ladies in the experiment made my skin crawl by saying racist things about a black girl.)

[AverageJoe90]

196. This post is a mix between good and not-so-good information, to be truthful.

While is certainly is true that People of Color are less likely to be able to graduate with a degree, are more likely to end up in prison, etc., the honest truth is, to claim that all white folks, as a collective whole, benefit from racism, is not only wrong, but even flies in the face of actual history as well.

To be honest, the main reason this bothers me a little is because, ironically, this same general "You benefit from racism" argument was actually used by racists themselves, believe it or not, particularly to defend Jim Crow & anti-"miscegenation" laws in the South, etc.

That may have been used in the polar opposite context than this post, that is true. But to the ordinary John or Jane who knows absolutely nothing about the intent of the message, guess what they're likely to think if they don't get defensive?

It would, sadly, probably be along these lines: "If I really do benefit from racism, then why is it a bad thing? Why is white privilege a bad thing if I benefit from that, too?" Some of you might be horrified to even contemplate that someone would get such an impression, and I can't blame you, but then again, sometimes, we badly underestimate the stupidity & cluelessness of some elements of the general public.

And furthermore, historically, racist, and other types of prejudiced thoughts & attitudes, although primarily directed at People of Color, was also sometimes used as a bludgeon to silence dissident whites as well and as a tool to divide & conquer, particularly in the labor movements of the first few decades of the last century. This same problem also even contributed to the retaking of the South in the 1880s and '90s by the reactionary Dixiecrats, who themselves were able to use racism and other bigotries to divide the population back up; they also enacted a lot of civic which not only did great harm to African-Americans socially, but it also did some harm to poor whites as well, particularly poll taxes and the godawful literacy tests.

Though done with noble intentions, I'm sure, this post also does exemplify the messaging problems that continue to exist within the present-day Social Justice movement. Make of it what you will, but this is merely the opinion(though backed up with some historical & other types of facts), of one person.

[nomorenomore08]

227. It does oversimplify a bit. But sometimes that's necessary to get to the heart of the problem.

The fact is, virtually all white people do benefit from racism, albeit to varying degrees. Race, of course, is far from the only factor involved - there's also gender, social class, sexuality, disability or lack thereof. It's a complex and difficult issue and that's why it irritates me when some people - I don't mean you - try to make it about them personally being hurt or offended, when that should be way down on the list of priorities.

You are correct, though, in that anyone who bucks the system generally pays for it one way or another.

[Captain Stern]

239. Relax...all is well. No hurt feelings.

[Wolf Frankula]

245. Hey One Percenters

I've found a way to rob the 99% blind. We'll get them arguing about the melanin content of their skins, and what one of them did to another 150 years ago. Then they won't notice that we're getting all the goodies!

Wolf

[CFLDem]

250. Bingo

[redqueen]

253. "what one of them did to another 150 years ago"

Dead giveaway.

[gollygee]

254. Amazingly, most people at DU

have developed this amazing ability to be concerned about more than one thing at a time.

[ScreamingMeemie]

268. Do you really believe that your fellow man can only concentrate on one thing at a time?

That says a hell of a lot more about you than it does the 1%. Thanks.

[nomorenomore08]

324. Stock response: "It's not racism it's CLASSISM!"

Ignoring the fact that both race and social class play an important role in determining individuals' life circumstances.

[babylonsister]

264. Love this! Rec'd! nt

[El_Johns]

275. To me, this "white privilege" meme seems kind of empty -- like "discrimination" turned on its head.

It's just listing the same things that have been under discussion since the 50s and even before, flipping them, and calling it "white privilege" as though it were some new revelation.

And it seems to put the focus on individuals who are "racist" or "not racist" or "try not to be racist" as though that were the crux of the matter, as though my individual racism or lack of it is why black Americans are less likely to have college degrees than white Americans. But this is not really the case.

I think most white Americans understand that whites are more likely to get college degrees and less likely to be in jail than black, Hispanic, or Native Americans. This is not new information, & I don't think most white people are "ignorant" about it.

I'm sure different individual whites would have various explanations for these facts, and some of those explanations are surely racist.

But I'm also sure that a signficiant percentage of whites feel these facts are problematic and should be changed, and explain them differently.

But how does "accepting 'my' white privilege" do ANYTHING to change them? I'm just another powerless schmuck, I'm not hiring people for jobs, or accepting college applications, or arresting people, or trying them, or putting them in jail, or writing stories about interracial murder in the paper.

So if I adopt the phrase du jour -- what changes? Nothing, as far as I can see. Perhaps I gain a certain cachet with certain types -- & come off as an insufferable prig to others. It seems a useless thing to insist on this particular phrasing as though it were the most important thing. I don't see it as important at all, I see it as off-putting and divisive -- maybe intentionally so.

Furthermore, the "people of color" here is just inaccurate: Asian-Americans have a higher median income and are better educated than white Americans, and go to jail less. That's a big category of "people of color," and they just don't fit. Though even within the category of "Asian Americans" some groups have lower educational achievement, lower income, etc than whites - e.g. Cambodians. But the group as a whole, no.

The rather large differences within the "Asian" group aren't about discrimination, more about the real & social capital each group came to the States with.

Also, the thing about how she "tries not to be racist"? I don't conceive of racism as something amenable to "trying" really. I see at as more deep-seated attitudes and beliefs about the world. Which can change, like all others - but I don't see that our beliefs really change through "trying". Maybe that's just me.

The whole concept seems muddled & kind of vacuous to me, sorry.

[GeorgeGist]

285. POCs? JFC!

[idwiyo]

287. k&r

[UtahLib]

288. Good information

...even if the intentional and hostile attempt at derailment was sad to witness.

[eqfan592]

291. One thing is clear to me from this thread....

...it is still impossible to have a discussion about race and/or white privilege without somebody feeling like they just had their bowl of Cheerios pissed in.

I recently had to remove a few people from my social circles because they started going on about "white genocide." So not only are there people ignorant of white privilege, but they actually take it to the extreme in the other direction.

[YoungDemCA]

304. It's absurd, isn't it?

[SummerSnow]

301. Hey what about blue privilege? Us blue people have rights too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NtcH9Bb08wk/UFW-Osaq6jI/AAAAAAAAAH4/kw9sSSFHh4c/s1600/Blue+people+13CT0996.jpg

[YoungDemCA]

305. "The only real components of whiteness are inequality and privilege"

-Tim Wise (slightly paraphrased).

K&R.

[nomorenomore08]

323. Which is why people who talk about "white culture/heritage" are being disingenuous.

There are a number of European cultures and nationalities - I myself am mostly Scottish with a side of Lithuanian - and those cultures should be acknowledged and celebrated like any other. But when people talk about "preserving white culture" without any qualifiers, what they really mean is preserving white supremacy AKA cultural racism.

[Vashta Nerada]

312. Ok. White privilege exists.

Where in that comic does the author offer ways to fix the problem?

[morningfog]

316. I don't think that was the pupose of the comic.

[Vashta Nerada]

317. I think it'd be a better use of time to figure out ways to fix the problem.

Instead of pointing it out and leaving it at that.

[morningfog]

318. They got you to admit that white privilege is real. One small step at a time.

[MadrasT]

330. Love the folks who get all defensive and think there is a point to be argued *against* here.

Very... illuminating.