I'm a straight, white middle class American who can acknowledge my own privilege and latent bigotry

[omega minimo]

Is that weird?

:hi:



edit for "acknowledge"

[Critters2]

1. Well, unusual. Refreshing. Yeah, I suppose it's wierd. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

2. honesty. how new and nice.

[noamnety]

3. Seems to be a rare thing here

Somehow people have confused "you have some privilege" with "everyone hates you personally and we know you are filthy rich." :)

[omega minimo]

8. yup

[BlooInBloo]

4. Congratulations.

[TomInTib]

5. Maybe we could start our own site.

You are only deemed wierd here on DU.

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. Braggarts R Us?

:eyes: Should go over well. :shrug:

[MoseyWalker]

6. Sounds like a lounge thread to me!

seriously, admitting is only the first step in a long process. Good luck, and peace.

[TahitiNut]

7. "latent"??

:rofl:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[LostInAnomie]

11. Ha Ha!

I heard that. :rofl:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[LostInAnomie]

54. "hateful/flippant sexist hypocrite"

:rofl:

That's rich, especially coming from you. That glass house of yours must be pulverized by now. :rofl:

[omega minimo]

67. refuting sexist bigotry is not bigotry

pretending otherwise is.

[LostInAnomie]

70. You'd be right, if that is what you actually do.

Instead, you play the role of a perpetual victim and project the totality of your personal flaws on others that laugh off your grandstanding.

So take your cliched slogans and cram them.

I await your inevitable (and predictable) victimized name calling. (I'm guessing it will involve calling me a bully, per usual.) :rofl:

[omega minimo]

78. your actions and attitude indict you

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. !!!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Miss Chybil]

9. People should not be discriminated agains because they have a bit

of money, and/or priviledge. I only discriminate against assholes - oh, and loud-cell-phone-talkers. I really hate those people. They should be put on an island somewhere. Everybody else is alright!

(You're not a loud-cell-phone-talker are you? Just checking, because I really don't want to slip up and end up actually talking to one. It would really mess up my equilibrium. Especially, if you're actually a nice guy who is also a loud-cell-phone-talker. Then I'd have to reasses my entire value system. I could put you in the, "Oh, but he's one of the 'good ones' category. If you are, I mean. Whatever. I'm sure it will work out. Que' sera sera. Right?)

[karlrschneider]

12. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you acknowledge it, it isn't latent.

Just sayin'...

;-)

edit...well, curses, foiled again.
:hide:

[TahitiNut]

14. Del Capo Al Fine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=238639&mesg_id=238715

[omega minimo]

24. refuting sexist bigotry is not bigotry

:puke:

[omega minimo]

19. if you don't acknowledge it, you're a bigot in denial

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Let's see if I've got this right.

There are three kinds of people:
1) bigots who acknowledge their (latent?) bigotry
2) bigots who are in denial of their bigotry
3) everyone else. People who are not inherently-privileged, white hetero males.

[omega minimo]

97. There's two kinds of people

1. "Us"
2. "Them"

:spray:









Guess what. There's one people. :think:

[smoogatz]

13. Do you feel guilty about your white male privilege?

As if you could give it back, somehow? I don't, actually. I grew up in a part of the country in which almost nobody--white males included--was privileged except in the most immediate comparative sense (white males may have been shit out of luck, but they were still better off than anybody else). I now work in a field in which straight, white males are actually a vanishing breed--practically unhireable, no matter their degree of accomplishment, education or work history. I've been the beneficiary of white maleness, yes--at a generational remove--but I've also been bitten in the ass by it for the last fifteen years, which kind of sucks.

[omega minimo]

21. i can recognize privilege on a scale beyond my personal life. guilt is beside the point.

[smoogatz]

25. Well, of course you can. If you're aware that it exists, you're obviously

aware that it's bigger (and badder) than just you. I guess I was interested in more than just your recognition of your privileged status as a white dude. I was wondering how you felt about it.

[hfojvt]

15. I've been lower class myself

since I quit my job for the MIC. What a privilege we have in poverty.

[spoony]

18. What? You mean

you didn't get the giant bag of gold every white child is given at birth? What did you spend all your gold on man?! :sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

22. ever watch COPS?

[hfojvt]

30. What does that mean?

Would you please explain, about the 50 ways?

[tomreedtoon]

16. Not weird. It's pretty standard around here.

The real question is, having acknowledged your privelege and your bigotry, where do you go from there? Does the thought of these two things paralyze you? Or do you go forward, trying to be better about the underpriveleged and the targets of prejudice?

[omega minimo]

23. why does the OP statement have to be associated with guilt and fear?

or an assumption that I haven't always been able to "go forward, trying to be better about the underpriveleged and the targets of prejudice"? (sounds like a liberal to me)

[Zhade]

98. Being a bigot isn't cause for guilt?

NT!

[omega minimo]

104. The OP doesn't endorse "being a bigot"

The OP endorses being honest with each other AND OURSELVES!!!!!!!! about cultural influences, societal forces and internalized attitudes.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. Pretty standard around here?

Boy, you've been fortunate enough to see threads I've not seen, then. And apparently a LOT of them if you call it standard.

More likely, IMO, you're not seeing the racism and homophobia and sexism that's actually here -- or more accurately seeing it and not recognizing it as such.

[Tyo]

17. I'm a gay asian queer

partnered with another gay asian queer. We have both been unemployed. We are both now doing what we like and getting paid very well for it. And we both realize that could end next month. We are privileged in many ways and we are human so we are also bigoted. Don't be too hard on yourself.

[Marrah_G]

26. Excuse me?

So every white person is a bigot, whether they think so or not?

What a crock of horseshit.

Sorry I refuse to feel shame over the color of my skin, no matter how many of you feel I should. I am proud of my Irish/Scottish roots.

Racism is racism is racism.

[Unvanguard]

28. Not EVERY. Never EVERY.

But the vast majority? Probably. Certainly more than will admit it. (This problem is even worse with sexism and homophobia.)

And people with mild subconscious prejudices aren't really "bigots"; it would be drastically unfair to call them that.

It has nothing to do with the color of your skin, or your Irish and Scottish roots. It's just the culture in which you live.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

35. lol

I guess you said things a bit more efficiently than I did. :)

[bettyellen]

38. i could never- it's just exasperating, this BS victim mentality that SOME white people have, LOL....

SOME
okay people i said SOME white people. like the one with the delusional post above.

[Marrah_G]

43. Victim mentality?

Why because I take offense to a post insinuating that all white people have "latent bigotry"? The post didn't say all people have "latent bigotry" just white people and that is absolutely absurd. This is not about victimization it's about not judging people on ethnic background, something ALL humanity needs to learn.

[bettyellen]

45. except the OP doesn't say all- YOU say ALL- you read it wrong and blame the OP fer your FUCKUP

[omega minimo]

81. I did not "insinuate that all white people have 'latent bigotry' "

I insinuated that SOME can't acknowledge it :yoiks: :hi: :evilgrin:


The fact that you "take offense" at what you think a one sentence OP is "insinuating" is telling. That sort of readymade, hair-trigger offense is one of the reasons the OP was floated. In the interest of having more topics possible to discuss. With fewer kneejerk reactions by those who refuse to acknowledge privilege; who can't separate their personal POV and "taking offense" -- from the big picture of societal forces and pressures on all of us. Which you seem to understand, which is why that was not all directed at you personally..... please don't take offense!

We agree on this: "...it's about not judging people on ethnic background, something ALL humanity needs to learn." That's true. True of gender, true of all sorts of biases of judgement. That does not mean that we can't discuss conditions as they are, including the historic dominance of some groups over others.

The OP was interested in why some are just so terrified of looking at it honestly or allowing others to do so. Why is discussing societal forces such an earth-shattering threat to some people? What are they afraid of?



What I said:
"I'm a straight, white middle class American who can acknowledge my own privilege and latent bigotry"

What I DID NOT SAY:
"So every white person is a bigot, whether they think so or not? What a crock of horseshit. Sorry I refuse to feel shame over the color of my skin, no matter how many of you feel I should."

I did not say "every white person is a bigot" I did not say "feel shame over the color of your skin" :crazy: (WAIT-- IS IT THE SHAME THAT PEOPLE ARE SO AFRAID OF????????????!!!!!!!)

What I ALSO DIDN'T SAY:
"The post didn't say all people have "latent bigotry" just white people and that is absolutely absurd."

I did not say "only white people have latent bigotry"

:thumbsdown:

Those are the sort of kneejerk reactions and total misrepresentations that gets in the way too often here. If you are aware that "all people have latent bigotry" and can discuss that, there's no need to get "offended" by one sentence that raises the same concept in a way you choose to read "insinuations" into.


If you are interested in reading the continuation of the thread, there's some great posts. And I had the opportunity to clarify-- maybe "inherent" would have been a better word than "latent." I don't consider myself or "all" white people to be bigots. I know that we all get caught up in false assumptions about others based on appearance. Part of not being bigoted is acknowledging (there's that word again) when we do it. Checking our perceptions, our assumptions, our judgements. Being honest with ourselves.

Which is apparently too hard for SOME people to do.

[hfojvt]

91. aha, but if not every white person has it

then SOME do not need to acknowledge what is not there, or what is not significant. To insinuate that every hetero white needs to acknowledge bigotry is to insinuate that every hetero white person is a bigot. It sounds a little bit like the preachers who say that all have sinned and thus I am just as worthy of hell as Hitler or Pol Pot. THe jaywalker and the serial killer are both criminals. Trouble is, that in common usage, 'bigotry' is intellectual mass murder, not intellectual jaywalking. That's why so many people will plead 'not guilty'.

[omega minimo]

96. Maybe it's a problem with not being familiar with history

[Zhade]

99. Ah, but you'd have to prove that all people have bigotry.

NT!

[Marrah_G]

36. Ah yes name calling

Since I don't admit to some "latent bigotry" I must be stupid right?

I do believe name-calling is against the rules, you might want to look that up.

[bettyellen]

37. nope, it's because you make up bullshit and think no one will call you on it

that makes your post so dumbass

[Marrah_G]

41. Screw you

I have as much of a right to my own opinion as you do to yours. I read the post and was offended. If you read it another way and weren't more power to you. It gives you no right to call names or try to infer my opinions are somehow "made up".

[bettyellen]

44. the post does not say what you claim it does. so it's bullshit, end of story.

[Marrah_G]

57. Self-delete

Just not worth the energy

[noamnety]

34. Every person raised in this culture

has values from this culture embedded into them, and some of those values are stereotypes. They come from our parents, our peers, our teachers, the media, from everywhere. So yes, everydamnbody (regardless of color, gender, etc.) has prejudices they carry around. Some of it is destructive toward other people, sometimes it's destructive toward ourselves. (Any woman that hates her breasts/stomach/hips, etc. - even though they KNOW it shouldn't affect their self-worth, and they KNOW how they've been manipulated by the culture and media to feel inadequate - understands exactly what I'm talking about there.)

To quote one of my friends (who is white): "how many whitefolks raised in white-supremacy culture are not racists? zero."

The OP seems to be suggesting that we all drop our defensiveness long enough to do some critical thinking about how our culture gives privilege to some groups over others and recognise those tendencies in ourselves so we can work to unlearn them. How you got from that to someone wanting you to be ashamed of your DNA, I have no clue.

[Morgana LaFey]

51. Exactly right

Totally. And well said to boot. (As always.)

[hfojvt]

61. that was very well stated

but your conclusion still points at white people, and not at the culture, but at individual white people. It is all white people who are racist, and who need to drop their defensiveness and admit the ways they perpetuate racism.

And when you say 'privilege' to some groups, I do not buy it. Here are snips from MacIntosh's article on white privilege:

"Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended.

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege

After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious.

My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.


Whiteness protected me from many kinds of hostility, distress, and violence, which I was being subtly trained to visit, in turn, upon people of color.

Yet some of the conditions I have described here work systematically to over empower certain groups. Such privilege simply confers dominance because of one's race or sex."

#50 is just crazy, because lots of white people do not feel either welcome or normal, and secondly, like most of the others on that list, it is not so much a privilege as a right. Everyone should have that, and those, rights. Look at it this way, suppose a black kid and a white kid goto school with $2 lunch money. If the black kid gets beaten up and has his lunch money stolen by racist bullies, that does not make the white kids privileged. Same with #16.

#20 stood out, because I cannot figure why anybody is bothered by being a "credit to their race". It's a put down to the rest of your race, but that's on others who are a 'disgrace to their race.' I am sure that every race or group has some of those. #26 and others on the list seemed to say that everyone should always be conscious of race and other characteristics. I thought it was disgraceful when I was watching the Superbowl and my host and his friend were cheering for the white players. Why pay attention to the race of a player or of a person on a poster. Secondly, can she really tell me that there are no posters, books, and magazines featuring Oprah, Tiger, Dr. J, James Brown, Ali, Jordan, etc., etc.? I grew up in the early 1970s with Bill Cosby records, 'Good Times' and 'the Jeffersons' on TV, and my brother had a black GI Joe.


"Whites are quick to say that it happened a long time ago. At the same time they are unable to own up to their responsibility to try to short circuit the systemic and structural racist cycle that his parents and their parents instigated." Black Commentator

I love the Black Commentator, but they have no business blaming my parents or grandparents for what was instigated. It was not happening in their neck of the woods, and they certainly did not instigate it. The BC their illustrates an inability to talk about "the systemic and cultural racist cycle" without making it personal.

[noamnety]

66. I meant for it to point at the culture

and to make it clear that oppressed people also perpetuate their own oppression at times - that's why I specifically mentioned women perpetuating beliefs and systems that oppress them, as a result of cultural influences.

20: I understand why "a credit to your race" is condescending as all hell - and damaging. Kind of like saying "wow, you're actually pretty smart, even though you're a girl."

26: When we were talking about disney movies in one of my classes, one of the women said she remembered asking her mom when she was small why there weren't any black people in the movies. It's a matter of marking something as "the norm" and everything else as a deviation from the norm.

50: The implication is not that nobody white ever has anxiety about entering a room full of people. It has to do with being immediately and obviously visually marked as different - and potentially inferior. You can get a small taste of it by being white and walking into an all black high school in Detroit - if it was the first time you did that, you'd be immediately aware of your status as "the white person." But even that does not adequately convey the situation when it's reversed, because the media has done such a spectacular job of portraying a lone black person in an all white school as a potential gang member, and the lone white person in an all black school as a potential missionary - the teacher who will save the black kids from the ghetto hell and squalor they live in.

[hfojvt]

83. for oppressed people to perpetuate their own oppression

is a different point, sort of a 'nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent'. What I was saying with your original comment is that 'everybody has prejudice' to one degree or another, not just men, but women too, not just whites, but also blacks, asians, native Americans, Indians, etc. No human is free from all prejudice.

Since white males who are poor or working class are also oppressed by the system, it does not gain allies to focus on whites or males. My question would be whether we are trying to remove racism and sexism from the system, or whether we are trying to remove oppression from the system. If it is the former, then whites and males are more justified in opposing that. The system, or the society is going to oppress and/or discard and/or exploit 30% of the population. In a racist and sexist society, most of those victims will be minorities and women and any working person unlucky enough to get sick or injured. Remove racism and sexism and that does not change the fact of the 30%, it simply means that more whites and males will be included in that group.

50. "Being immediately and visually marked as different." Doesn't that happen to me all the time since I am exceptionally skinny?

[noamnety]

89. disagreeing on a couple points

and agreeing on others.

nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent

I absolutely did not mean to imply that. The messages we get are from such a young age that they are ingrained in us without our consent. Psychologically, we're victims. Even without our consent. And it's not JUST a matter of making people "feel" inferior. There is real harm being done to people beyond self-perceptions.

No human is free from all prejudice.

agreed!

On your next point, I'm confused. Are you saying racism and sexism exist, but it's wrong to address them? Or that because class oppression also exists, racism and sexism shouldn't be spoken of - it should get a pass, be ignored? I'm sure that's not what you're saying, but I'm having trouble reading it another way. Misunderstanding?

"Being immediately and visually marked as different

Not just different, but inferior. Some people are marked as different but superior (taller and more attractive = better job opportunities, for example).

I don't know how people react to your weight, so I can't/won't address you in particular. But certainly people who fit into our cultural standards of attractiveness have privilege as a result of that, and those who are noticeably outside those standards have less.

The hourly wage of fat women is, on average, 20% lower than the pay of a woman of average weight. But slimmers be warned: underweight women also take home slimmer pay packets than average women do. However, skinny women make up for this in the marriage market: they marry men with the highest earnings. Husbands of skinny women earn on average 45% more than those of fat ones.

Men, it seems, are different. Underweight men take home by far the lowest earnings, while slightly overweight men enjoy the fattest pay-packets - 26% more than their underweight colleagues.

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/money_politics_law/rules_of_attraction.htm

And, as always, the privilege (or lack thereof) extends to how everyone interacts with you, not just your bank account. If you are earning less as a result of gender/race/weight it follows that the reason relates to the amount of respect people treat you with.

[hfojvt]

101. it is not entirely about class oppression either

I am just saying that my own battle is more with the society itself, rather than with the racism or sexism in society. Battling racism and sexism can be more about bringing more people into society as it currently is, than it is about transforming society. For example, there were 32,258,000 poor people officially in 1999. The rate was 9.8% for whites, 23.6% for blacks, 10.7% for Asians and 22.8% for hispanics. The rate for everyone was 11.8%. Suppose racism was eliminated and the poverty rate became 11.8% for all races. Then you would still have 32 million people in poverty, we would just have another 4.47 million poor whites, 4.18 million fewer poor blacks, .12 million more poor Asians, and 3.6 million fewer poor hispanics. Attacking racism will not necessarily attack poverty, but attacking poverty should disproportionately help minorities.

Some people (including some black activists and feminists) want to end the rat race, others just want to make it more racially and sexually fair. My sympathy, my alliance is with the former, whereas the latter seems to be more of an affirmation of the corporate world.

That view is all pretty pie in the sky though, since our practical battle now is with "the power-lust of those who would be king, the greed of those who wish they were aristocrats, and the relentless malice of those priesthoods that would force their creed on everybody else." Mark Crispin Miller's forward for "Screwed"

[noamnety]

106. I am not on board with that, sorry

That sounds an awful lot like "we'll tackle racism and sexism after poverty is solved." In other words, never.

Or, putting it another way, blacks and women should just accept getting shit on at disproportionate rates in order to protect white guys.

I don't know too many blacks and women that are down with that logic. :)

[hfojvt]

108. it is certainly not about protecting white guys

and I do not know that the same rates hold for sex as they do for race. It is about doing something for the poor. E.F. Schumacher distinguishes between 'homecomers' and 'people of the forward stampede'. Daniel Quinn distinguishes between a culture of 'givers' and a culture of 'takers'. So I would distinguish between "feminist homecomers" and "feminists of the forward stampede". I often find in feminist writers and thinkers some of the most solid criticism of society as it is, so I think there are some women who are down with that, and the Black Commentator, although I do not read them often enough, seems to be pretty radical too.

I could just as easily say that sounds like "we will tackle poverty only after racism and sexism are solved, in other words, never". If poverty is solved, then blacks and, perhaps, women, will no longer be 'getting sh*t on a disproportionate rates'. However, it seems that if racism and sexism are solved that 30 million plus men, women and children of all races will still be getting sh*t on.

[noamnety]

109. Except nobody has argued that poverty needs to go on the back burner

Whereas some folks are arguing that racism and sexism needs to be put there.

If you are telling me that we shouldn't fight to raise women and blacks to a point where they will have true equality with whitemen, because the whitemen's status will be somewhat lowered (a point that remains to be proven), then it sure looks like it's about protecting whitemen's privilege. I'm not arguing that I want more white guys going hungry, but that's some serious BS to try to sell that logic to folks that are already shouldering more than their fair share of the burden of poverty. Go sit in the back of the bus - again - cause if you didn't, some white guy might have to.

Nobody's going to be plunged into poverty because reporters stop fixating on female politicians' wardrobes. Nobody's going to be plunged into poverty if we quit saying dumb shit like "you're a credit to your race," and actually acknowledge what that kind of comment does - real world effect - to students' performance on standardized tests ("stereotype threat").

Nobody's going to be plunged into poverty if health insurers actually have to cover women's prescriptions and pharmacists have to dispense them. Nobody's going to be plunged into poverty if we start prosecuting folks in the military who rape our own soldiers, instead of covering those crimes up in the old boys network, and persecuting the women who report being raped. Nobody's going to be plunged into poverty if we start demanding that hollywood quits portraying blacks like they are violent and guttermouthed, or that they stop portraying latinas as being oversexed, or if we quit the racial profiling shit by police, or it the marketing industry stops portrayed women as being naked, bound, gagged, and raped in ways that sell violence against women as an erotic commodity.

[omega minimo]

74. lwfern rocks and you provided something else very well stated:

"Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended.

"I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious."


This is a key to the question behind the OP statement-- and "taboo" is the motivation behind it. If we can't talk openly about certain subjects without massive misunderstandings occurring over and over and over-- it is a great stumbling block to other issues we need to cooperate on. Why is that imporatant? Not just for the sake of cooperation, but because the issues of historic privilege and dominance are CRUCIAL to understanding and addressing the broader issues.

The quote above points toward education-- "____ are TAUGHT not to recognize" their own privilege. I used the words "my own" privilege in the OP title. What I meant was that I can acknowledge some fact of inherent privilege and maybe I should have said inherent (rather than "latent") racism.................. and not feel threatened by that. I can be objective about historic and societal privileges by accident of birth that may or may not translate into specific privileges in my own life.

My question was WHY is it so hard-- verging on impossible -- for some males to do that, for some whites to that, for some white males to do that? Why can't they step back and see the big picture-- why are they so emotional and frantic about ANY discussion about societal forces that they kneejerk assume is a personal attack on them?

Maybe they were "taught" to do that. But it creates a "taboo" of certain subjects on an open discussion board and recurring arguments that prevent recognizing and dealing with the larger subjects.


"61. that was very well stated but your conclusion still points at white people, and not at the culture, but at individual white people. It is all white people who are racist, and who need to drop their defensiveness and admit the ways they perpetuate racism."

There's more of that confusion about the general to the specific, the societal to the individual. We can discuss these things as they affect us from different POVs and not feel personally threatened by it. But something has happened to some men to make it impossible to do that-- to be objective, to consider different POVs, to not feel personally threatened. What is that?




lwfern (1000+ posts)  Sun Feb-18-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Every person raised in this culture
has values from this culture embedded into them, and some of those values are stereotypes. They come from our parents, our peers, our teachers, the media, from everywhere. So yes, everydamnbody (regardless of color, gender, etc.) has prejudices they carry around.
..................
The OP seems to be suggesting that we all drop our defensiveness long enough to do some critical thinking about how our culture gives privilege to some groups over others and recognise those tendencies in ourselves so we can work to unlearn them."
+++++++++++++


I agree with lwfern. There is not one white person anywhere, no matter how enlightened, how well raised, how well educated, how well loved, who has not at some time committed some blunder, some faux pas, some unconscious slight, or worse, because they were not completely colorblind. If we do try to be colorblind, it still happens-- a thought, a term we wouldn't say out loud, a hesitation, a false assumption-- it happens to everyone. Being honest with ourselves about it is part of NOT being bigoted IMHO.

And yes, everyone does it, everyone has "values from their culture embedded into them...."

[hfojvt]

88. sure, all I provided well stated was a quote from Macintosh

that some DU opponent linked me to in an earlier argument on this subject.

I do not like the quote, as it implies that all males and whites are oppressive, even if "much of their oppressiveness was unconscious." Somewhere, I guess my mom or my female gradeschool teachers or Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch and Lassie and Flipper taught me as a white male to be an oppressor.

I have, however, seen a film in sociology that showed how mothers taught their sons to be aggressive and taught their daughters to be nurturers, and I have also seen how our prevailing cultural value of greed is not consciously taught as much as it is just assumed.

"We can discuss these things as they affect us from different POVs and not feel personally threatened by it. But something has happened to some men to make it impossible to do that-- to be objective, to consider different POVs, to not feel personally threatened. What is that?"

I think I am fairly open about other POVs and statements about American or Western culture, but blanket statements about groups I happen to belong to are another matter. To say that "all white men are racist and sexist" because we live in a racist and sexist culture is simply not accurate no matter whose point of view it is. Nobody is completely free of prejudice, everyone is an a$$hole to some degree and at some point. Whites and males do not have a monopoly on that, or on power.

The question is also whether that is the characteristic that defines them. Neither I nor David Duke are free of prejudice, but if 10 is a perfect racist then Duke is a 9.2 and I am a 2.6, unless I flatter myself, as usual, and am really a 5.2. Either way I am miles away from a David Duke which I consider to be a relevant distinction. If we both are perpetuating the system in some way, it would be interesting to discuss how, but to simply say that "all whites are racist" seems only to obliterate the distinction between Duke and I, and between allies and enemies.

"historic and societal privileges by accident of birth that may or may not translate into specific privileges in my own life"

However, if the privileges do not extend into my own life (and MacIntosh would say that they do) then they are not white privileges since some whites, such as myself, do not enjoy them. Privileges of wealth and rank can overwhelm any racial/sexual privileges IMO.

[omega minimo]

93. I think you are too

"I think I am fairly open about other POVs and statements about American or Western culture" and one of the few willing to have a discussion like this, let alone take it this far.... thank you.

You are walking down the street. You see someone coming toward you who suddenly rushes to cross the street to avoid passing you.

Are "you" a white person or a black person?

You are walking down the street. It is late night, you're alone and you feel safe.

Are "you" a male or a female?

You are walking down the street. You don't to worry or even think about these things at all, ever.

Are "you" a white male? Is that security and freedom from fear a form of privilege?


There are different forms that "privilege" takes. In the way that people treat each other in all sorts of situtations. (lwfern points this out down below) What difference does color make in the continuing genocide in Darfur, the carnage in Iraq, the abandonment of New Orleans people in Katrina? "Privilege" is not just a matter of quantifiable rewards or monetary status. Right? (you quote me): "historic and societal privileges by accident of birth that may or may not translate into specific privileges in my own life"

You say: "However, if the privileges do not extend into my own life (and MacIntosh would say that they do) then they are not white privileges since some whites, such as myself, do not enjoy them. Privileges of wealth and rank can overwhelm any racial/sexual privileges IMO."

Do you understand the generalized privilege that is granted "in the pecking order" that may extend into your life? And that it's not just about $$$$$?

You have really hit it here:

"I think I am fairly open about other POVs and statements about American or Western culture, but blanket statements about groups I happen to belong to are another matter. To say that "all white men are racist and sexist" because we live in a racist and sexist culture is simply not accurate no matter whose point of view it is."

This notion of "blanket statements" is the key to shutting down discussions of the bigger societal factors. This depends on the inability to separate oneself from the broader implications of one's "group's" societal influence. This is the stumbling block DU hits time and again. Discussing a racist and sexist culture is NOT "To say that "all white men are racist and sexist" "........... but trying to discuss the culture triggers the fear buttons of those who react to "blanket statements about groups I happen to belong to." How can we discuss the culture and avoid triggering those fears or whatever is behind the hostility?

How can we communicate the distinction between group societal forces and individual behavior? Why are SOME men so afraid that talking about a force larger than they are is an indictment of them personally?

At this point, it looks like the answer is that some men themselves don't actually see any difference. They consider any challenge to the status quo as a direct personal threat to them.

But the McIntosh quote said it much better. :spray:

:hug:

[hfojvt]

105. I do not see the discussion of societal factors

as much as I see attacks on whites, or males, or heteros, or Christians 'as a group'.

"You are walking down the street. You see someone coming toward you who suddenly rushes to cross the street to avoid passing you.

Are "you" a white person or a black person?" I'm a white male who has seen that happen.

"You are walking down the street. It is late night, you're alone and you feel safe.

Are "you" a male or a female?" I carry pepper spray. I only feel safe because I am a fairly fast runner and in a small town.

"You are walking down the street. You don't to worry or even think about these things at all, ever.

Are "you" a white male? Is that security and freedom from fear a form of privilege?" No. To call it a privilege implies that I should be made just as insecure and fearful as others, that it's not something everybody should have in a sane society. Its lack may be oppressive, but its presence is not a privilege. Further, since I am not a violent rapist or mugger, I am not responsible for its lack.

"Do you understand the generalized privilege that is granted "in the pecking order" that may extend into your life? And that it's not just about $$$$$?" I am pretty sure it doesn't. In the social pecking order, I have always been on the bottom, probably below 25th percentile, certainly far below my sisters.

"How can we communicate the distinction between group societal forces and individual behavior?" Yet the MacIntosh quote basically said that all white men are taught to be oppressors, perhaps unconsciously, but oppressors nonetheless. That is personal more than it is societal, and even with your examples how is my privilege of feeling safe and free, even if I had it, how does that oppress anybody? I guess because of my melatonin deficiencies I am part of the vast white wing conspiracy whether I want to be or not.

[omega minimo]

119. Thank you, friend, for going there with me.

"To call it a privilege implies that I should be made just as insecure and fearful as others..."


The fact that you think that is the implication, shows the insecurity and fear behind NOT recognizing the privilege. It shows it and doesn't answer it-- but the answer seems to be that the pirivileged who refuse to acknowledge privilege are just too scared they'll lose something if they open their eyes to it.

"Its lack may be oppressive, but its presence is not a privilege."

And there's the blindness.

"Further, since I am not a violent rapist or mugger, I am not responsible for its lack."

And there's the proof that it is just impossible for some to sort out the concepts, separate the big picture (and yes, societal forces) from themselves.

I don't understand it. I wanted to understand it better. It does appear to be some sort of indoctrination, some subconscious paranoia beyond all logic; or the consequence of being raised to be equated with Godhood by gender.

The MacIntosh quote says it well.


"I guess because of my melatonin deficiencies I am part of the vast white wing conspiracy whether I want to be or not."

In another thread, someone protested, "That's Guilt By Penis"! but "vast white wing conspiracy" is pretty funny too. But it's not the point. The reason that I phrased the OP in the first person is that I am not afraid of the implications of whatever privilege has come to me by birth-- and I don't understand why SOME men argue that none at all has come to them by birth as male and/or white.

It was worth exploring because it gets in the way constantly of important discussions on DU. Because SOME of us are not allowed to discuss those larger societal forces without being shouted down and shut down, accused of attacking individual men or every man or "all men." No matter how we may phrase it or present it or explain it.

And now it looks like SOME men can't see any difference. And can't handle it that anyone else does.

It is OK to discuss "authoritarianism" and essentially the same concepts, because it is vague enough and doesn't push the wrong buttons of some men. But when some of us discuss certain issues, we don't always use the word "authoritarian" in place of "male."

If some women on DU try to discuss certain topics in a way that some men don't approve and condone and allow, those men shut it down, every time.

That's privilege.

[hfojvt]

193. where have we gone?

"And now it looks like SOME men can't see any difference. And can't handle it that anyone else does."

See any difference in what? I think there is a difference between the meaning of authoritarian and male? Are you arguing that they should be used interchangeably? "we don't always use the word "authoritarian" in place of "male.""

You say that I cannot separate the big picture from myself, but in my reading of McIntosh, she does not make that separation either.

"Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended."

First of all, how does me being able to walk safely down the street have anything to do with women's disadvantages? Did I somehow gain my security at the expense of women? Isn't that implied in "advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages". The same goes for some other things on her list "I can expect that I will not be raped nor sexually harrassed nor be a victim of domestic violence", The odds are good, if not quite 100% for those, but I do not see the connection. Would I, as a man, lose something if suddenly, by magic, domestic violence, rape and sexual harrassment vanished? I don't see how, but she says it is an advantage that men gain from women's disadvantages.

"I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege." I think it is far more likely that they are simply taken for granted. When I walk down the street I do not think of that as a privilege that parapalegics don't have. Their perspective may see me with a privilege while my perspective sees them with a handicap. Is one perspective more valid than another? I would say the walking person's is more valid. To me a privileged person who be a parapalegic who has society buy him a wheelchair vs. the disabled person who gets no help. A privilege is an addition, not just the absence of a handicap.

Beyond that, though, I do not see the absence of a Y chromosome as a handicap in our society. In fact, I can quote Susan Faludi to support that assertion "Single men suffer from twice as many mental health impairments as single women; they are more depressed, more passive, more likely to experience nervous breakdowns and all the designated symptoms of psychological distress - from fainting to insomnia. In one study, one third of the single men scored high for severe neurotic symptoms; only 4 percent of the single women did." (Backlash p. 17)

"After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious."

There she ties "men" with no qualifiers to "oppressiveness". She tied the big picture to men, so that includes me, unconsciously oppressing all women, apparently by going to work with the expectation that I won't be sexually harrassed, or by objecting when somebody conflates "white" or "male" with "oppressor".

[Marr]

27. Rather than just congratulating you, every poster who agrees with you

should do the same, regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.

Implicit in your statement is the notion that we all harbor prejudices. I think we do. All of us. If you feel compelled to make this sort of mea culpa, that's fine- but I find it a little funny that the most sympathetic response you've received is 'good for you for acknowledging YOUR latent bigotry'.

It's a two way street, kids- and none of you is exempt if you agree with this post.

[treestar]

29. Is this all you must do, or do you owe something to anyone

who can identifity themselves as a victimized group?

If so, what is it?

That itself would put you into an oppression based on your birth.

Come one, there are poor straight white guys, too. In fact, since whites are a plurality of the population, they are probably greater in number.

It's collective judgment no matter which side you are looking at.

[noamnety]

46. "owing something" is not "oppression."

Everyone in a privileged group "owes" it to society to learn the ways in which they have privileges, many of which are invisible to them.

They "owe" to to society to work to extend those privileges to other groups when appropriate, or to undo their own sense of privilege when appropriate.

If, as a white person, you recognize that blacks are unfairly stopped by police and questioned, or are arrested and convicted at rates that are disproportionate to their crimes, then you "owe" it to society to try to help right that injustice. It's beyond me how that moral obligation makes you an oppressed person.

If, as a male, you GET that men hog conversations habitually, if you are at least exposed to that idea, then you "owe" it to society to spend some time watching male/female interactions within your own communities, and spending some time observing how you interact with people. If, as a result of that, you find that you tend to interrupt women, or talk over women, you "owe" it to your community to make an effort to correct that, and give women equal space in conversations, and give their ideas equal consideration.

If, as a male, you think you are ENTITLED to not have a gay man shower with you because you are ENTITLED not to have someone check out your ass if it makes you uncomfortable, but at the same time you feel ENTITLED to check out women's asses, you owe it to examine where that sense of privilege comes from.

Having a moral obligation to extend the same privileges you enjoy to others does not make you an oppressed person. Sorry.

[AspenRose]

50. Excellent post

...and I am stealing your last line for my sig. :hug:

[MedleyMisty]

52. I think I love you

:)

Everything in that post is so true.

And for the record, I'm white and straight. But relatively poor and female.

I think a great deal of people who get the whole privilege package (NOT ALL OF THEM) have to work harder to recognize it. Like for me, it's easier to see and "get" racism and homophobia because I'm on the wrong end of classism and sexism. But if you have no idea what it's like to be discriminated against, it's probably pretty hard to imagine.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I'm a straight man who couldn't care less about showering with a gay man.

I couldn't care less even if a gay man in the shower wanted to "check my ass out", although I don't subscribe to that straight man conceit that all gay men want to screw me. (Even though I am damn hot :hi:)

That said, I think there's a pretty wide chasm between objecting to being naked in a communal shower with someone who is expressing potentially unwanted sexual interest, and just having your fully clothed butt glanced at in a public place. I don't think you can argue that it represents a sense of "entitlement" to look at someone's butt (or other fully clothed body part) in public without expressly asking permission first- and if you don't accept that, you should be prepared to shower fully naked in front of anyone, at any time.

I think most women would make a fairly large distinction between having a man look at their butt in public, and having to stand naked in a shower in front of that same man. I think trying to draw a parallel between those two situations is ludicrous.

[noamnety]

68. It's the same sense of entitlement, just a matter of degree

We can change the scene from a shower to a gay bar, if you like.

Edit to add: Appreciated that you aren't homophobic. Disagree that it isn't a sense of "entitlement" to feel you're allowed to objectify women.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Well, if you want to stop people on this planet from lustily looking at members of the opposite

(or same) sex - which I heartily disagree constitutes that eternally impossible to define bugaboo known as "objectification" - you've got a massively difficult battle in front of you.

And if you think only hetero men "objectify" women by looking at their butts (or other body parts) in public, you're greatly mistaken. Come to the Castro some time, you'll see plenty of male-on-male "objectification" going on. I've been ogled by both genders, at various times in my life... although not so much as the old days (sniff!)

Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We are, all of us, sexual beings-- and only the most sadly misguided extremists among us want to put a stop to that.

[noamnety]

75. Again, it's a matter of degrees

One of the straight boys in our GSA at school did an experiment. He put on a skirt, tights (so his leg hair wouldn't show), put his hair into two ponytails. And walked down the sidewalk of a busy street. Can't recall if he stuffed his chest. He's a smallish guy, not a big burly person, so it wasn't an obvious "cross-dressing" thing. He just went out dressed as a woman. He didn't make it down the street without a bunch of guys honking and hollering at him as they drove past. There is a huge gulf between how men are treated in our culture and how women are treated.

Any woman that's done yard work in her front yard has likely experienced that same thing. I have one friend who was afraid she'd get ticketed by the city because she hadn't been mowing her lawn - specifically because she was having issues with people making sexist remarks and honking at her while she was outside. My daughter asked me to pick her up from junior high instead of walking home the half mile, because - in junior high! - guys were yelling at her as they drove by.

Do I really need to be categorized as one of the most sadly misguided extremists to recognize there is something wrong in our culture when that's considered normal and men can justify women (girls as young as 12, sometimes younger) going through their lives being treated that way?

[Warren DeMontague]

102. Again, as you say, matter of degrees.

There's a difference between yelling something obscene at a 12 year old girl and looking at the fully dressed butt of an adult woman. (or man) Unless I'm mistaken, your previous post was regarding men looking at women's asses, and how any man who did that and still would feel uncomfortable being naked in a shower with a gay man was hypocritically guilty of indulging in "male privilege".

The next post -please, correct me if I'm reading these wrong- seemed to state that EVEN a hetero man who wouldn't be uncomfortable in a shower with a gay man would be guilty of, as you put it, "objectification", by, again, looking at the fully clothed ass of a woman.

(For some reason the biblical verse about "striking out thine own eyes lest they offend thee" springs to mind)

Now, if your intent was to talk about folks hollering and honking at 12 year old girls, verbal or physical assault, or any of a range of other things, that really wasn't clear from your two posts upthread. Instead it seemed to me what you were talking about was men looking at womens' fully clothed asses. :shrug:

[noamnety]

107. It's not acceptable, even IF there's no verbal or physical assault

"The Crimson White learned at about 1:45 a.m. Friday that the traffic camera at the intersection of University Boulevard and Reed Street, which usually remains stationary, was panning, tilting and zooming in on people and objects along the Strip.

The Strip camera operator(s) manipulated the camera to zoom in on several college-aged women's breasts and buttocks as they walked down the street. The operator(s) also captured a group of young men who had spotted the camera's movement and were making various gestures and movements.

Joe Robinson, transportation director and city engineer for the Tuscaloosa Department of Transportation, said the manipulated camera was controlled by someone from the Alabama State Troopers Office."
http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/09/12/3f629e6e6a1fd?template=pda

"Two members of Fort McDowell Casino's regulatory office were fired last fall because one man used casino surveillance cameras "to photograph the breast area of patrons and employees" and the other, his supervisor, condoned the action, according to state documents released this week."
http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html

"Rossi was supposed to be patrolling airport roads and parking lots during his Feb. 29, 2004 shift, when he reportedly used the airport's closed-circuit television system to focus on women's breasts and buttocks, police Chief Heather Fong said in charging documents. Rossi allegedly spent a total of three hours manipulating and monopolizing six of the cameras, charging documents say. He reportedly ignored coworkers' warnings that he should not be using the cameras, saying "he did not care since he was not assigned to the substation he would not get in trouble," according to the charging documents."
http://www.notbored.org/camera-abuses.html

"Four more surveillance camera operators at Caesars Atlantic City Hotel Casino used the equipment to ogle women, according to a complaint filed Tuesday. In December, the same casino was fined $80,000 for similar incidents involving two other camera operators who trained their eye-in-the-sky cameras on low-cut blouses and revealing clothing instead of craps games and slot parlors."

"Police found a so-called "skirt cam" under a subway grate at 88th Street and Lexington Avenue Tuesday afternoon after a woman called police saying she had noticed suspicious wires protruding from the grate as she passed by. Police closed off the street, fearing the device was a bomb, but soon realized it was a four-inch multi-media camera recording and pointing upward. The camera had an external hard-drive, making it possible for recordings to be broadcast on television and downloaded onto the internet. Police do not consider the camera to be a threat to public safety, but rather a threat to privacy."

"A police CCTV operator has been carpeted -- after security camera footage showed close-ups of the boobs and backside of a woman in the street. Shocked detectives found a 20-minute sequence of saucy footage while checking the film during a probe into an assault. The screen was filled by shots of a scantily clad woman's breasts, bum and legs as she was "followed" by cameras in Worcester."

Apparently you don't see the ethics problem with that, or why women would be pissed off about it?

[GaYellowDawg]

116. None of these are examples of your first post.

Your first post sounded like it was oppressive any time a man glanced at a woman's ass. These seem a little different to me; you're getting images that can be viewed by more than just the individual in question; e.g., they're making it public. It does seem like a matter of degree to me.

I don't think it's legitimate to consider offenses without degrees. For instance, while slapping someone and stabbing someone are both forms of violence, stabbing is a much more violent action. An adult slapping a 7 year old and a 7 year old slapping an adult are both slapping, but I think anyone would agree that the former is much worse.

But I get what you're saying. You're saying that any time any man looks at any woman with any kind of sexual thought without the direct and express permission of the woman in question (and only in a fashion with which she feels entirely comfortable), he's guilty of fostering oppression and objectification of women.

[noamnety]

118. Not all of those cases were photos "made public"

If a policeman has a job of monitoring a surveillance camera, and he is in a room alone, zooming in on a woman's breasts, and nothing is recorded or shown to anyone else, do you feel that's ethical?

Do you think women would find it offensive if they found out? Is it ethical as long as nobody tells the women?

Do you think it's any more or less offensive to women because he's in a remote location?

Most importantly, from a female perspective, do you think it's oppressive to have to live under that condition perpetually, every time you are out in public? (Note, I'm not asking if, from a male perspective, you feel it's okay to look occasionally; I'm asking whether you think the constant state of being on the runway for the male gaze might be oppressive for women.)

[GaYellowDawg]

136. True.

If a policeman has a job of monitoring a surveillance camera, and he is in a room alone, zooming in on a woman's breasts, and nothing is recorded or shown to anyone else, do you feel that's ethical?

Of course not. The very fact that I'm on a liberal board should tell you so, and you're smart enough to know better.

Do you think women would find it offensive if they found out? Is it ethical as long as nobody tells the women?

I think that anyone should find it offensive, and it's never ethical. Again, you know better.

Do you think it's any more or less offensive to women because he's in a remote location?

Again, of course not, and again, you know better. Even asking these questions is both demeaning and insulting, regardless of whether you're doing it to prove a point.

Most importantly, from a female perspective, do you think it's oppressive to have to live under that condition perpetually, every time you are out in public? (Note, I'm not asking if, from a male perspective, you feel it's okay to look occasionally; I'm asking whether you think the constant state of being on the runway for the male gaze might be oppressive for women.)

I'm male. I can't adopt a female perspective. I can say that no one should have to live under the conditions you describe.

I will say - from the male perspective - that the idea that you live under that condition perpetually is ridiculous. Do you honestly think that your every waking second is filled with some man drooling over you? Do you think that every man who is out in public has his head on a swivel looking for the next body part to pant over? Thanks for stereotyping men as testosterone-riddled freaks who are no more than life support systems for their penises.

[noamnety]

144. I am indeed trying to prove a point with those questions

I am trying to get you to examine the logic here.

A. A security camera operator zooming in on a woman's breasts/ass is offensive and unethical, even if he does it in private and she never finds out about it.
B. A man ogling a woman's breasts/ass is inoffensive and ethical so long as she never finds out about it - and so long as he isn't using a security camera, just his eyes.

What is the ethical difference, in your mind?

[bettyellen]

154. it is really tough convincing guys how it feels when it's all day long- you'll have guys

argue with you that groups of guys don't catcall and manhandle women- because they've never seen it. well doh! they don't do it in front of men...
it can be a thin line, but when it's a prolonged or challanging stare, or groups of guys, or cat calls it can quickly go over the line into menacing.
i was just telling a friend how much our town had changed since they have a smoking ban, there are many bars in town, and many groups of smokers outside them, and somehow it's become the norm for them to shout things to pretty much every single woman who passes by IF she is alone. it;s bizarre, and unpleasant, and something i couldn't have imagined a year ago. i don't find it scary at all- but very unpleasant- fuck yeah. and it's guys who act totaly normal when they are inside, they are so desperate to amuse themselves they have to stoop to harassing women. and the funny thing is my friend doesn't belive me what an epidemic it has become, because he works on a very quiet streeet where it doesn't occur. and these are young yuppies, most of them work on wall st. it's bizarre that this has become normal. how do these guys ever get laid?

[Warren DeMontague]

159. If her point was about groups of men making catcalls, shouting, harassing, etc

then that's what she should have said.

Instead, what she has said, clearly and repeatedly, is that any man who, under any circumstances whatsoever, "checks out" a woman's ass is guilty of....well, something-or-other.

And I think that's fucking batshit nuts.

[bettyellen]

187. do you remember the seinfeld thing about cleavage- you glance and loook away, LOL?

There's an unspoken thing that happens, once I've caught you staring at my ass and I don;t give you a big welcoming smile, you stop it right away. In fact you try sort of pretend it didn;t happen if your a nice guy. If you continue to stare, you're looking for trouble, or you are trouble, because you're either nuts or you're saying you like to intimidate women. People are animals and body language says alot. But some guys absolutely get off on intimidating women.
This voyeur stuff is a whole other ugly ball of wax. I'm not going there. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

243. I agree with everything you say.

What I'm talking about isn't to be confused with being creepy- it's the glancing that everyone does. I'm happily married, but I appreciate attractive women, and my wife certainly appreciates attractive men. Nothing wrong with that. I still catch women (and some men) giving me the once-over, although maybe not so much as in the old "salad" says. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Making someone uncomfortable, not looking away, glaring, etc. would all, to me, fall under the rubric of "creepy".

...Although the absolute creepiest glares I can think of are the ones from some obvious right-wingers when they see my liberal bumper stickers.



Grrrrr!

[bettyellen]

258. Lol, it's an interesting topic, i ususally can bear a lot more than a lot of women i know

but still over the years i have learned some times and places it can be overwhelming to walk alone. usually it's because thee are too many groups of guys. the first warm sunny days is a total dog fest, for instance. guys sit on curbs trying to look up skirts, such is the desperation after a long hard winter.
the times square area used to be much worse, i used to try and eat lunch on the street there, and sometimes it would get pretty gross, you can imagine. wall street is still pretty bad after 5 pm when the guys have a snootful, i have been grouped and pinched there quite a few times. . unfortunately my town has become so loud and obnoxious (show us your tits obnoxious) and i'm going to avoid the main drag late thurs thru saturday nights as much as possible because i came close to slapping people last time. from what i've observed, it;s usually groups of guys. but there are also the odd ones that are just hitting on everyone and not taking your dirty look as a no, and also the ones that like to intimidate you. those guys are scary weird.
but i think iwfern raised some interesting issues about considering what ages/ circumstances are okay, some men ought to think a bit more about to who and how this attention is given. I think it's entirely possible to show some appreciation and still be respectful, but i think it's a fine line a lot of men- especially young drunk ones- don't even bother to consider.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. All your examples use security cameras or other surreptitious surveillance devices.

But, obviously, you'd like to put a stop to anyone looking at anyone else while having sexual thoughts in any way, shape, or form- something that, according to you, only heterosexual men do. (Even though that's not the case)

And for that, all I can say is "good fucking luck."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

161. Technology and the hidden voyeur are the differences.

The security camera operator is not visible to the women he's spying on and is also in possession of technology that allows him to get a closer look at women than he would likely get in person.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. No. You are never allowed to glance at a woman's ass, ever again!

Actually, you're not allowed to look at anything -under any circumstances- without express written permission, first.

Only your culturally conditioned male privilege makes you think you can run around looking at shit willy-nilly.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

170. Damn, how will I pass the time now?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

171. I've found "yahtzee" helps.

Do people still play yahtzee?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

172. Nope -- guess I'll try Sudoku.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

174. I was quite a sudoku addict, then I got a GF.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

175. Yeah, I need one of those, too.

:rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

179. It cuts down on the sudoku time.

:rofl:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

184. Fair trade.

:rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

190. More than fair. She's way better than sudoku.

[Warren DeMontague]

244. You should see what a wife does.

Sudoku? More like Nodoku!

[noamnety]

176. Your reply assumes two things

1) that as long as the woman is unaware of his actions, he's being ethical
2) that the ethics are based on how much he is able to zoom in.

From the woman's perspective, neither of those is true. The first is a lame excuse - so long as you don't get caught, it's ethical behavior? Seriously - is that how male ethics work? At least GaYellowDawg admits that doesn't make it ethical - and rightfully is offended by my questioning whether he can figure that out.

I think any woman here would also dispute the second. We are not okay with the camera being used so long as it isn't zoomed in to give a "closer look."

But let's say your (offensive) assumptions are true. How is it ethically different than standing behind a woman in a hardware store checking out her ass for fuckability while standing 2 feet behind her?

Is that really ethical - unless she turns around and catches you? Then it suddenly becomes unethical?

If you had an 11 year old daughter, and you caught some 30 year old guy obviously staring at her ass (but she didn't notice), would that piss you off? Can you put into words WHY it would piss you off?

There are simply too many things that bear examining, that apply to some folks and not others, to list them all. So the simple rule is: pay attention to everything. It shouldn't be that hard, right? I mean, you have control over your body and your mind, and it doesn't take that much CPU time to register that your eyes have landed on a strange woman's ass. But for some reason (and I'll give you three guesses as to why), men are heavily averse to doing that. They give millions of excuses, all of which really boil down to either "It's too hard!" or "Why should I?", both of which themselves boil down to "It makes me uncomfortable to notice how poorly I treat/think of/feel about other people, especially women."

Another important thing is empathy. Actually think about how you would feel, as a woman, if strange men bigger than you were staring at you in the parking lot? All the time? Particularly since you watch the local news, and hear about women being murdered and women being raped for pretty much half the program every night, followed by the one inner-city male-victim drive-by and the Human Society's "Adopt a Puppy" spot?

Quite simply, would your behavior, innocent as you may claim it to be after the fact, frighten, scare, upset, unnerve, or be otherwise unappreciated and unwelcome by a woman nearby? Yes, yes, I know. YOU'RE different. YOU'RE charming and cute; those other guys are just pervs. Sure, THEY'RE behavior might rattle that pretty little cashier, but YOUR behavior will endear you to her and might get you a date. Whatever. The perv who just did a subtle-but-insignificantly-different variant of what you're doing thought the exact same thing and the perv behind you in line is thinking it too.

That's why empathy is important. Don't think about how a woman SHOULD feel, according to you. You're neither an expert on how women should feel, nor do you have the authority to set a standard for Appropriate Female Emotions.

http://www.pkblogs.com/bitingbeaver/2006/01/dim-beginning-path-to-nonassholedom.html

[Starbucks Anarchist]

183. WTF?

First of all, I was implying that what the security cam guy was doing was unethical, and the fact that he was hidden and had access to such technology was what made him unethical.

As for the second example of the man on the street, simply checking out someone is not unethical in my opinion. It's human nature and applies to everybody -- everyone is guilty of doing this.

And I have no idea why the hell you brought an 11-year-old into this. I assumed we were talking about adults here.

[bettyellen]

209. the 11 year old is to elicit some empathy- and perhapsthink of to use as

as a standard what you'd feel okay happening to your baby sister- (as overdeveloped for an 11 year old that she is)
Basically, a lot of guys act in ways they would find very upsetting if someone treated their mom/ sister/ girlfriend like that...
and sometimes an analogy like that works to get them to think of it from the woman's POV.
:hi:
sorry i did n't get to meet you in NY. :)

[noamnety]

211. I misunderstood your point about the cam guy

my bad.

But I still would disagree that the ethics change based on technology use (ethics are based on motive and action, not technology), and disagree that the ethics change depending on whether he's hidden in another room vs. just standing behind the woman unobserved. There is no moral difference.

I brought the 11 year old into it deliberately to illustrate a point.

I'm challenging you to put into words why it's offensive to ogle an 11 year old - does an unnoticed glance violate her in some way? Does a thought that's unacted upon and not revealed to her violate her in some way? WHY is it offensive? You said it was the woman's problem if she felt offended. Wouldn't the same apply here?

What kind of thoughts would you NOT want someone having about your 11 year old daughter, but wouldn't bother you if they had those thoughts about your 15 year old daughter, or 18 year old daughter? Would you expect an 11 year old to be creeped out if they discovered a 30 year old was thinking about their ass like that? Cause here's the thing - the rest of us get creeped out, also.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

246. The 11-year-old is a strawman.

For one, it is not within the realm of the thoughts of most people to ogle an 11-year-old. The 11-year-old is also not emotionally mature enough to form a fully formed response of any kind.

If an adult harbors sexual thoughts about a child that age, it is an indication that he may do something even worse. If an adult ogles another adult, it is likely NOT a harbinger of anything further -- in fact, if you tell me that you've never ogled another adult in any capacity, then I'm the Pope.

And an adult ogled by another adult where the watcher is in plain view is something to be expected -- remember, I'm talking about watching, not anything further. Someone observing women from a hidden camera and obtaining an otherwise improbable look via technology is abusing his power, trust and morality -- a clear difference from the silent, observant man on the street.

[noamnety]

249. myopic male perspective in your post

it is not within the realm of the thoughts of most people to ogle an 11-year-old.

It IS however, entirely within the realm of possibility that an 11 year old will be ogled by a man at some point.

I've already said my own daughter was getting comments in junior high. Consistently. So this is a relatively normal phenomenon for at least some pre-teens.

It's not all that rare for men to go after underage women. Look at the history of the US Navy in Thailand. Look at the UK, where child prostitution is "spiraling out of control" according to the BBC. Actually, scrap all that. There are 39 million survivors of childhood sexual assault in the US (median age of reported assault - age 9). So ogling an 11 year old is not a strawman. It happens. Regularly.

Moving on, you seem to be under the impression that if a man stares at a woman's ass, she shouldn't feel threatened, because men aren't likely to assault her. Again, this is from a MALE perspective, and one of privilege. YOU know you won't assault HER, therefore SHE shouldn't feel threatened. Is that based on your perception that sexual assault of adult women is relatively rare?

Is it your assumption that any invasion of privacy, any rude behavior on your part should be accepted and welcomed by women, and if your behavior is offensive and makes her feel violated, you have no responsibility to alter that behavior? Do you have the right to go around making women feel uncomfortable?

Finally, women don't feel any less violated just because a man staring at their ass isn't on the clock for his employer. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

255. Yikes...

It IS however, entirely within the realm of possibility that an 11 year old will be ogled by a man at some point.

Hence I used the phrase "not within the realm of thoughts of MOST people."

I've already said my own daughter was getting comments in junior high. Consistently. So this is a relatively normal phenomenon for at least some pre-teens.

I didn't know you mentioned your daughter earlier, considering this thread is almost 200 posts long and the fact that I was replying to your subthread here which did not previously mention her.

But you mentioned your daughter getting comments in junior high by other pre-teens. Surely you can tell the difference between a child being commented on by someone her own age and an adult.

It's not all that rare for men to go after underage women. Look at the history of the US Navy in Thailand. Look at the UK, where child prostitution is "spiraling out of control" according to the BBC. Actually, scrap all that. There are 39 million survivors of childhood sexual assault in the US (median age of reported assault - age 9). So ogling an 11 year old is not a strawman. It happens. Regularly.

Now we're going international? I thought we were talking about white American males here. And I NEVER said sexually assaulting children was a myth. I said using an 11 y/o re: ogling adult women by adult males was a strawman since minors and adults are two entirely different categories.

Moving on, you seem to be under the impression that if a man stares at a woman's ass, she shouldn't feel threatened, because men aren't likely to assault her. Again, this is from a MALE perspective, and one of privilege. YOU know you won't assault HER, therefore SHE shouldn't feel threatened.

No, I never said that. I have repeatedly said that adults, of BOTH genders, regularly ogle each other, and to believe that it doesn't happen is silly. If a woman does feel threatened by a stranger noticeably ogling her, making catcalls, etc. -- in other words, going far beyond a quick glance -- then she would certainly be within the right frame of mind to feel threatened.

Is that based on your perception that sexual assault of adult women is relatively rare?

An utterly baseless, offensive and immoral response that reflects worse on you than it does on me. TOTALLY out of line.

Is it your assumption that any invasion of privacy, any rude behavior on your part should be accepted and welcomed by women, and if your behavior is offensive and makes her feel violated, you have no responsibility to alter that behavior? Do you have the right to go around making women feel uncomfortable?

Evil Knievel couldn't make a jump this big. I was referring to simple ogling of one adult by another, and nothing beyond that. In many situations, the woman may not even notice, but if she did, she would certainly be in the right to call him on it. But to believe that people can suppress the basic laws of attraction is the height of ludicrousness.

Finally, women don't feel any less violated just because a man staring at their ass isn't on the clock for his employer. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

First of all, I was referring to the security cam guy that YOU brought up, particularly in reference to the fact that nobody has the reasonable expectation to be spied upon in public, particularly in such an intrusive manner as is possible via a security cam. Women's reactions have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether someone is on the clock or not.

[noamnety]

269. Some comments from me, and then an email from a man I'm friends with

because believe it or not, I do learn a lot from my male friends and appreciate their perspective. :)

It IS however, entirely within the realm of possibility that an 11 year old will be ogled by a man at some point.

Hence I used the phrase "not within the realm of thoughts of MOST people."

Hence I made the point that you are viewing this with a male perspective, whereas you're being asked to step outside of that and view it from the female perspective. Your view is not wrong, two perspectives can be simultaneously correct, but I am frustrated when men appear unwilling to acknowledge women's experiences, even when told directly "this is what we experience."

... you mentioned your daughter getting comments in junior high by other pre-teens. Surely you can tell the difference between a child being commented on by someone her own age and an adult.

She was getting comments from adult males "as they drove by." She could not walk home from school without being consistently harassed by adult males.

It's not all that rare for men to go after underage women. Look at the history of the US Navy in Thailand. Look at the UK, where child prostitution is "spiraling out of control" according to the BBC. Actually, scrap all that. There are 39 million survivors of childhood sexual assault in the US (median age of reported assault - age 9). So ogling an 11 year old is not a strawman. It happens. Regularly.

Now we're going international? I thought we were talking about white American males here. And I NEVER said sexually assaulting children was a myth. I said using an 11 y/o re: ogling adult women by adult males was a strawman since minors and adults are two entirely different categories.

It's telling to see how a fair segment of American men treat girls when they are outside of the US legal system. The prostitution rings that spring up around military bases world-wide, where men can do what they honestly like without a reasonable fear of prosecution is revealing. Now if I left the statement at that, someone would likely be offended that I single out American men. So I am adding as well that it is an international thing.

No, I never said that. I have repeatedly said that adults, of BOTH genders, regularly ogle each other, and to believe that it doesn't happen is silly. If a woman does feel threatened by a stranger noticeably ogling her, making catcalls, etc. -- in other words, going far beyond a quick glance -- then she would certainly be within the right frame of mind to feel threatened.

I'll go back to what I said earlier. If men here don't understand the concept of "the ubiquitous male gaze" then that's a sign that either they aren't experiencing it with the same frequency that women do, or they don't feel as threatened (offended) by it for some reason. It's something to think on.

Evil Knievel couldn't make a jump this big. I was referring to simple ogling of one adult by another, and nothing beyond that. In many situations, the woman may not even notice, but if she did, she would certainly be in the right to call him on it.

Often calling them on it escalates the situation instead of diffusing it. The confrontation can increase the threat.

But to believe that people can suppress the basic laws of attraction is the height of ludicrousness.

They can, however, alter their actions. The sister analogy is a good one. Think about how you treat/view women. If you were with a bunch of guys, and they started treating your sister the way you are treating someone (staring at their ass, whatever), would you tell them to stop? If you told them to stop and they didn't, would you have a little bit of an urge to smack them? That might be a clue that you've crossed the line from a casual glance to something offensive.

nobody has the reasonable expectation to be spied upon in public

.
Bingo.

As food for thought, here's part of an email from a friend who has been confronting some of his own behavior and attitudes lately, it's part of a discussion we were having about being at an event where a mutual (male) friend addressed people as "brother" or "sister." (Some identifying details removed.)

From my perspective it had a leveling effect on us, that made race, class, social standing, rank, etc. less a consideration. I feel like the seed was planted during ____, but didn't sprout until a few months later when I was walking through a neighborhood on my way to work. There was a young woman who'd recently moved into a house along the way, and I'd taken notice of her several times before and found her attractive. That day, she was out gardening, and as I approached along the sidewalk, a familiar set of mental & physiological responses went into motion ... a slight nervousness, a lightning-quick mental comparison of her to my (societally-influenced, of course) Jungian anima-ideal, and yes, a definite "checking her out" kind of look. But then she turned around, looked into my eyes, smiled, and waved ... in a most disarming manner. All she did was greet me in a neighborly kind of way, but by doing that it was like this huge game I was playing had been busted. There was no acknowledgment of this pursuit-conquest business that contaminates our relations with others, just an innocent hello. It was like she was seeing me through some clearer lens, and I was being given a chance to see through that lens too. At that moment, the word "sister" came into my head, weird as that sounds.

I know I make this mundane thing sound overly dramatic, but it really was that way for me. That's when I started thinking about ___'s use of the word, and maybe a deeper reason for its use. And yeah, it does come off as awkward & forced a lot of the time in speech. I mostly use the words silently, internally, as a way of establishing a mental frame, especially when I find other people's differences from me bringing out judgments or habituated ways of characterizing them. People are to a great extent objects in our mind until we start to consider them intersubjectively, and I guess those words are a bridge to helping me get there.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

276. Okay...

Hence I made the point that you are viewing this with a male perspective, whereas you're being asked to step outside of that and view it from the female perspective. Your view is not wrong, two perspectives can be simultaneously correct, but I am frustrated when men appear unwilling to acknowledge women's experiences, even when told directly "this is what we experience."

The fact that I did not dispute that 11 y/o can be "checked out" by an adult, though it is not that common, essentially proves that I am in fact agreeing with the female perspective.

She was getting comments from adult males "as they drove by." She could not walk home from school without being consistently harassed by adult males.

Then you should have specified that in this subthread. Because in a previous post, you said, "So this is a relatively normal phenomenon for at least some pre-teens," which seemed to imply that the harassment was coming from her classmates.

I'll go back to what I said earlier. If men here don't understand the concept of "the ubiquitous male gaze" then that's a sign that either they aren't experiencing it with the same frequency that women do, or they don't feel as threatened (offended) by it for some reason. It's something to think on.

Ubiquitous male gaze? Is this the surface definition or something bigger? Because in regards to a male and female adult, the surface definition of males glancing at an attractive woman is normal human behavior. In fact, so is women ogling men, men ogling men, and women ogling women. It's called the laws of attraction. I have yet to see anybody see an attractive stranger walk by while the bystander thinks to himself, "Wow, she has a fantastic personality!" The "ubiquitous male gaze," as far as the standard definition goes, is not exclusively male and is certainly normal behavior. Actions past that may certainly be called into question, however.

Often calling them on it escalates the situation instead of diffusing it. The confrontation can increase the threat.

So what's the alternative? You can't control the guy's ogling, but if you ignore it, you're uncomfortable with it, as you stated before.

Recently, here in NYC, I noticed a group of construction workers across the street making catcalls (obviously uncalled for) at a passing woman. The woman immediately turned around and lectured them until they left, red-faced. These burly construction workers certainly didn't escalate the threat when called on it -- they were neutralized because the woman stood up for herself.

When I said, "nobody has the reasonable expectation to be spied upon in public," you replied, "Bingo." However, you have misconstrued what I said. The key word is "spied," as in via a security cam. It is impossible for someone to spy on another person when the spy is in plain sight of his target, i.e., the man on the street ogling a passerby.

BTW, you never answered my earlier question. Have you NEVER even taken an extra glance at an attractive man?

[bettyellen]

252. not at all, my niece was getting comments and attention at that age

even though she was small and wore conservative clothing.
you're thinking what;s normal for you and your friends, the world isn't always that kind. :shrug:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

260. Commented on by whom?

Adults or children? Two different things.

I'm not sure "what's normal for (me) and my friends." I've never made catcalls at a woman, nor anything remotely approaching that. For one, I'm quite shy, and two, I'm not a prick.

[bettyellen]

261. grown men.....not realizing me walking 15 feet behind her as guardian, it's disturbing isn;t it?

i remember talking to her mom about it and we both agreed her long blonde hair might have been the big draw. maybe suddenly she reached an acceptable height :shrug: she still looked like a kid though. she had the body of an 8 yr old boy (she fit modeled for me, so i know) and men were suggesting pornographic things she did not yet understand.
her mom was like, she is going to have to learn there are scary people and assholes she has to blow off and watch out for, i never guessed it would start that young. now she's 14 it's every day on the streets, and also on the net for the past couple of years. she pretends she's in her thirties, LOL. to get less interest from guys on the net, and says that works. it's always worse than you nice guys think. we women don;t bitch about it socially, i'd bet you'd be surprised.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

262. That is extremely disturbing.

I'm sorry she has to go through that.

[bettyellen]

265. well she is a way smart cookie.

her parents have done a bang up job, she doesn;t have the illusion that the world is a perfect place, never did. and that helps.
:hi:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

167. Those are two separate things entirely

A. A man working on someone else's equipment, being paid to perform a task shouldn't be using the time to ogle women. Period. In fact, it's wrong for anyone using surreptitious means to view another person. The "upskirt photos" so popular on the internet are probably the most egregious violation.

B. If a man uses his eyes to ogle a woman, he's doing just that - ogling her. You haven't shown why this is even a bad thing. If I see an attractive woman, I'm going to sneak a peak. That's just the way men are. You can't change it, and you shouldn't even try. Trying to get men to stop looking at women goes against everything in our nature. It's only offensive as long as YOU take offense. In other words, it's YOUR problem that you get offended when men find you attractive.

[GaYellowDawg]

178. So far, the only real point has been to try to win points.

You're giving outlandish examples and trying to paint all men with a broad brush. Most men don't use security cameras to spy on women. Most men don't hide cameras in street grates to take pictures up women's skirts (and, in fact, most men would consider that sick and quite pathetic).

A. A security camera operator zooming in on a woman's breasts/ass is offensive and unethical, even if he does it in private and she never finds out about it.
B. A man ogling a woman's breasts/ass is inoffensive and ethical so long as she never finds out about it - and so long as he isn't using a security camera, just his eyes.

Well, now, it all depends on your definition of ogling, doesn't it? What length of time constitutes a glance versus ogling? Is a glance wrong? Or is it conscious intent that makes it wrong?

If you're talking about a protracted stare, then I wouldn't differentiate between A) and B). Neither would be offensive to the woman specifically. How could she be offended at something that she never knew about? Before you come out of your chair screaming, let me explain: both A) and B) are unethical, not because they are injurious to an individual, but because they are deliberate actions that perpetuate the objectification of women.

If you're talking about a glance, then there is a difference between A) and B). A momentary glance can be completely reflexive, in which case you're talking about conscious vs unconscious reaction.

[noamnety]

205. I'm actually NOT trying to paint all men with a broad brush

I have male friends who were raised to think exactly like our friend in post 167 above - men act like that, they can't help it, I'm offended that you would try to challenge our right to stare at your asses when and where we want, and if you are offended by that, that's YOUR problem. That, to me, is the essence of male entitlement and deliberate lack of empathy - and lack of responsibility for one's own actions. If you feel up to responding to that post, please do so. If I were male, I would be pretty insulted by the assertion that men are incapable of changing their behavior. If I believed that, I wouldn't bother posting here.

Back to my friends - they've done enough reflecting on their own attitudes that they've come to a place where they recognize that the ubiquitous male gaze DOES do damage to women. And when I say ubiquitous, I'm talking about from the women's perspective. So I'm not saying YOU ALWAYS stare at women's asses. I'm saying women - a lot of women - are very aware that if they go out in public in something other than a long shapeless bit of clothing that conceals the lines of their ass, they will not make it through a crowd without a number of men mentally eying their bodies and assessing whether they would or wouldn't have sex with them. It's like going through life with a team of people standing on the sidelines holding up score cards like you just finished an ice skating competition. It's uncomfortable as hell and makes us feel preyed upon. And it's disrespectful.

Men here either can understand that - not in a casual oh that happened to me once sort of way, but as a constant state of being, in which case they ought to have empathy, or they can't understand it at all, in which case that should be a sign that either men do it to women far more than the other way around, or for some reason it feels more threatening to women.

So I'm trying to explain that from a woman's perspective. Not as an indictment of you in particular, but so you can gain some insight into what another class of people commonly experience. Gaining insight into what other people experience shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack.

As for "most men don't use security cameras to spy on women" - that is true, and it's the emotional reaction from the male perspective. Two things to point out. One is that I'm using it to demonstrate why voyeurism is unethical, so yes, it is an extreme case in order to demonstrate unequivocally the male gaze in one of its most dramatic forms.

Also, though, there is another way to look at the camera use, which is not the odds that a given man will abuse a camera, but rather the odds that a given woman will be a victim of it. That would be the woman's perspective. In Manhattan alone, there are about 4500 surveillance cameras visible from street level. That's a huge amount of coverage - one could easily get the feeling that practically anywhere they walk in that area, they are under surveillance. "Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found." http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14863res20020225.html One in ten chance - suddenly it doesn't seem like such an outlandish example, does it? If you lived there, you WOULD know a woman who has been the victim of that. Do I have any reason to believe the camera operators are substantially different in this country?

You know how republicans like to tell us there's no reason to be pissed off at the patriot act? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with people reading your emails, listening to your phone calls, going through all your medical records. There's no constitutional right to privacy. How do you feel about that?

[GaYellowDawg]

216. Great post!!

That was a very good read.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. The "ubiquitous male gaze". Good grief.

So under what circumstances- precisely, please, outline them- is it permissible for a human being to find another physically attractive?

[omega minimo]

77. I took lwfern's point to be about

a bit of self-reflection-- which is what the OP (such as it was) was about and I am really appreciative of all the thoughtful comments here... and here's to you ETA :spray: :toast:

"Everyone in a privileged group "owes" it to society to learn the ways in which they have privileges, many of which are invisible to them."

"Many of which are invisible to them.............." Hmmmmm :think: interesting..........

"They "owe" to to society to work to extend those privileges to other groups when appropriate, or to undo their own sense of privilege when appropriate."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

I liked her examples. The "conversation hog" resonated. Part of the reason to raise this thread/question is figure out how we can discuss certain topics without getting shut down by those who think it is their privilege to do so, who take any commentary on the status quo as a personal affront to them.................. SNAFU.




And in her example of a male being treated in a way he objected to (if it was done by a gay male), who then turned around and did something equivalent to a female without seeing the discrepancy there.......... she was getting at the key to this mystery.

Is it education, conditioning, consciousness, arrogance, fear or what, that allows some whites and some males to be completely oblivious to and/or incapable of discussing a generalized priviliege of being white/male and separating that general privilege from their specific, personal, individual life and POV?

Any insights that dissuade the conclusion "It's all about THEM" are appreciated :evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

103. As always, OM, your thread is a thought-provoker.

:patriot:

My response was to the effect of, there is a big difference, situationally, between being naked in a shower and fully dressed in public. As lwfern points out, it's a matter of degrees. I don't think mere the act of looking at (or "checking out", as lwfern's post put it) someone's butt -or pecs, or eyes, or whatever- qualifies as the sort of activity, in and of itself, which requires a great deal of introspection, self-reflection or self-flagellation. If it's not done in an obvious way which causes the other person discomfort or embarrassment, I don't think it requires an apology, or even an explanation.

I'm not talking about hollering at someone, whistling at someone, groping someone (is that you, Arnold?) or even staring excessively, menacingly, or weirdly. I'm talking about glancing at a nice ass, and believe me... hetero men do it, hetero women do it, gay men do it and I'd suspect lesbians do it too.

But I DO think the "gay shower" controvery, if you can call it that, has been useful in pointing up some really dunderheaded attitudes prevalent in the straight male community, about gay men and homophobia in general.

[me b zola]

69. !

:applause:

[stop the bleeding]

195. Dumb question here....

I agree with your post 100% but I am confused on one degree.

Bear in mind that I am white like a chicken and I love women not men, and I am male.

If, as a male, you think you are ENTITLED to not have a gay man shower with you because you are ENTITLED not to have someone check out your ass if it makes you uncomfortable, but at the same time you feel ENTITLED to check out women's asses, you owe it to examine where that sense of privilege comes from.

Now this showering that you speak of, hell no I wouldn't want a guy checking me out if were in the same shower together, but if myself and a woman are sharing a shower together(like as described with the men) then I would expect both of us would check each other out, only seems natural to me.

Now if you were meaning that guys should not check women out when they are fully dressed like in everyday life I agree, but no amount of reason will make a guy do something different other than what feels natural him.

[Karenina]

222. OOOLALA!

:woohoo:

[demrabble]

31. Good On You

Good on you for "acknowledging" your privilige and bigotry.

Now, what are you going to DO about it?

Talk is cheap.

[mongo]

32. I bet you're humble and loveable too

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Now That You've Acknowledged It, Hopefully You'll Take The Steps Necessary To

avoid bigotry altogether.

I'm glad you can acknowledge that you have the potential to be a bigot, but that's only the first step. The second step is doing whatever you can to overcome any tendency towards bigoted behavior. It's definitely an important step that you can acknowledge the flaw, but it's far more important to overcome the risk of bigotry completely.

I wish you luck on your continued progress towards this end.

[omega minimo]

84. Acknowledging latent bigotry IS the step to overcoming it

It is a process, for all of us. I don't need your instruction or endorsement. Or another misinterpretation "you can acknowledge that you have the potential to be a bigot." :puke: I do not "have the potential to be a bigot" and the fine point eludes you, intentionally or not.


Now, if DU could get the gender bigots to recognize their behavior, we'd be getting somewhere.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Not Sure How A Direct Quote Could Be Misinterpreted.

You said yourself that you can acknowledge your own latent bigotry. Seemed like you were standing up and recognizing that you have the potential to be a bigot and that you may have underlying bigoted ideals, since that's what latent means and since that was your direct quote. Don't get all pissy at me for your own words. I was just saying that it was a good step for you to take; to admit such things; but to keep going forward until you eradicate that potential altogether. Bigoted behavior is always ignorant behavior, so we all should be striving for perfection in its avoidance. I see no reason for you to get huffy over that.

Like I said; good on you for admitting the potential, and good luck with your future ventures of overcoming it completely.

[omega minimo]

87. Not a "direct quote" -- Not sure how you always manage to misinterpret

but start with your compulsion to restate and turn around someone else's posts.

I said it is a process. Clearly your view of the process is not mine. So don't bother projecting yours onto me or assuming things you know nothing about.


If you are truly interested in "striving for perfection in its avoidance," start some consciousness raising with your gender bigot buddies on DU.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. You're The One Who Made The Declaration, Yet Now You're Acting Embarrassed By It Or Resistant To It.

Your reply makes no sense.

Again, you've replied with some rant about how I twisted your words blah blah blah. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Not only did I not twist anything, but my response was a pretty direct and straightforward reply to your direct and straightforward OP.

You said: "I'm a straight, white middle class American who can acknowledge my own privilege and latent bigotry". Yes, that's a direct quote. Why you responded above that it isn't a direct quote is quite perplexing. Now to that direct quote I responded plainly that I'm glad you could acknowledge your inner potential towards bigotry and that it's a big step in doing so, but that I hope you continue the self enlightenment until you completely overcome the potential for bigotry, since bigotry is ignorance and we all should strive for its eradication.

Now for some reason, you get all up in a tizzy about my reply and have the gall to accuse me of twisting things. Standard reply from you, but as usual it carries no real bearing of legitimacy. You had a short and direct declaration of which I responded plainly. There is no twisting whatsoever and I'd love it if you could point out to anyone where there had been. It was sincere kudos for your acknowledgment of your potential for bigotry and sincere wishes that you continue to strive for overcoming it completely. You're the one who issued the statement, Omega, not me. Why all of a sudden you are running around defending yourself from your own statements is quite a mystery. Did you post the OP just so you could use it to accuse others of being bigots? Is that why you keep trying to turn it around to everyone else? I hope not, cause that would be really sad if you had. But if you did post it as a self enlightenment and acknowledgment of your own personal potential towards bigotry, then like I said; I'm glad you took the first step in acknowledging that and sincerely hope you continue to overcome until the risk of being bigoted is wiped clean from you, which is something of course we all should strive for.

[omega minimo]

120. The objection is to your unwelcome reitieration of the post and misinterpretation of its meaning

Clarifification of the meaning goes ignored by you.
You insistently repeat that your paraphrased version and misinterpreted version of the post is the ONLY one.
You refuse to listen to anything else.
You argue against your mistaken interpretation rather than the poster's meaning.
Every time.
If you read the thread, the meaning is clarified. Or reread the posts to you and try to understand them.


"You're the one who issued the statement, Omega, not me."

That's right. I issued my statement, not your version of it.

"Why all of a sudden you are running around defending yourself from your own statements is quite a mystery. "

I am defending myself from your typical, compulsive insistence that YOUR interpretation of my post is what I meant.


Maybe if you said what you think, rather than try to reduce and repackage what other people post, you might get somewhere.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. What Are You Talking About?????? Paraphrased Version??? It's A One Line OP!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl:

I don't know what your problem is here. I responded to your OP plainly and didn't distort a thing. I have no idea why you are acting so defensive about it, and you still have not pointed out a thing I've said wrong. Why you are acting defensive and angry towards your own premise and your own words is a mystery, and continues to be such since you still have not pointed out in any way how the hell I've distorted anything. Just cause ya say so, don't make it true ya know.

[omega minimo]

152. A one line OP that's not limited to your stunted version of what it means

Why don't you present your own ideas instead of regurgitating others? :puke: it always comes out messed up.

And "Just cause ya say so, don't make it true ya know."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

186. Not Sure Why Your Own Admission In The OP Has You In Such A Tizzy, But Whatever. Not My Problem.

You said it, you deal with it. My responses have been perfectly fine. Why you always feel the need to knee jerk react with your bitterness and smears towards me is a bit sad to see, but I can't stop ya. All I know is I didn't twist a damn thing nor say anything provocative whatsoever to justify your ridiculousness in response.

It was your OP Omega, and a pretty plain one. You acknowledged your own latent bigotry. Good for you! I'm glad you did. That's a good first step. Regardless of your unjustified vitriol towards me, I still sincerely hope you take it a step further than just recognizing your own latent bigotry until you overcome the potential completely, as we all must strive for. That's a sincere message and damned if I know why you get so bent out of shape over it. Like I said; YOUR OP. YOUR words. YOUR declaration. YOUR latent bigotry. Good step in acknowledging it, it really is. But it is absolutely important to know that acknowledging it is not the last step, it's the first. As long as you know that then fine. But there still was no need for your defensiveness and attitude.

[omega minimo]

203. Your tizzy, your problem

Since you have gone in a big circle, restating what you started with, registering nothing that was in my posts, as usual. Your patronizaing "that's a good first step" "now take the next step" is pure bullshit. Your misrepresentations are always unwelcome.

You can quit pretending to be confused as I have stated quite clearly:

84. Acknowledging latent bigotry IS the step to overcoming it
It is a process, for all of us.
I don't need your instruction or endorsement.

87. I said it is a process.
Clearly your view of the process is not mine.
So don't bother projecting yours onto me or assuming things you know nothing about.

84. Acknowledging latent bigotry IS the step to overcoming it
It is a process, for all of us.
I don't need your instruction or endorsement.

87. I said it is a process.
Clearly your view of the process is not mine.
So don't bother projecting yours onto me or assuming things you know nothing about.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

219. Still No Idea Why You're So Defensive Towards Your Own OP.

You continue to spew out accusations of misrepresentation yet there aren't any.

Put your money where your mouth is Omega, and show how.

And if you've stated it is a process that you are continuing with to achieve, then what the fuck is your problem with my original reply to begin with? You shouldn't have one. It was a perfectly fair response and one that it seems like you even agree with.

Seems to me the only reason you respond with your attitude is because it's the only way you know how. But that game gets old Omega; real old.

Fact is, I haven't misrepresenting anything, haven't gotten in a tizzy over anything, and haven't done anything other than politely and directly reply to your OP. For some reason you've taken issue with it, but that's really your problem. My message was fine. It just seems like you are getting defensive over your own premise of acknowledging your latent bigotry, or like you are embarrassed now that you have come forward to accept it. It is beyond perplexing your reaction, and you have yet to explain in any way why you have reacted to my post in such a way or what was wrong with it to begin with. You pasted two of your posts in repetition but it is readily clear that neither really say anything, though they are ripe with unnecessary and uncalled for attitude. Why the need for the attitude towards a polite reply? Not a very good way to treat people.

But anyway, good luck with your continued private process towards overcoming your own latent bigotry. Bigotry is always ignorant so it is always important and valuable when someone can step forward and recognize it within themselves.

Cheers to your progress, Omega. :toast:

[omega minimo]

236. baloney

"you have yet to explain in any way why you have reacted to my post in such a way or what was wrong with it to begin with."

[loyalsister]

40. Only weird if you decide it's okay to let it loose

I can relate to what you are saying.
I am a white female who has joined a minority group (disability).
I acknowledge that within this group I have certain advantages over others who may be of different cultures or even some who are less educated.

My tendency is to make sure that others know that we are all part of the same "club." These are my brothers and sisters.
Thus, the target of my latent own bigotry that I must say has surfaced, is the majority of which I am no longer a part. It's a difficult thing to sort of "manage" and try to explain.

[Karenina]

47. Those who understand what you've written

have no need for an explanation. :hug:

[loyalsister]

49. Thanks

:hi:

I was unsure how understandable it might be.

On a side note.
I once read one opinion that suggested that said acknowledging our stereotypes entails a discovery of having been "retroactively wrong." I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.

It's not an easy admission.

[Karenina]

60. THAT is a very astute, courageous

and honest admission, dear one. I embrace you again. :hug:

[aikoaiko]

42. not weird, but very 1980s liberal art college,

;)

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cgrindley]

55. That's not particularly helpful

so my privilege includes a shorter lifespan? and less funding for my gender's diseases? I disagree with you. Perhaps it might be true if you're a member of the baby boom, but I'm generation X, and we got nothing. My wife makes more money than I do. Also, I'm in the gender and race minority in my workplace, so I'm not really feeling that I've got anything going on.

[lukasahero]

56. " My wife makes more money than I do"

You say that like it bothers you... ? Do you think it's your "privilege" to make more money than her?

[cgrindley]

58. I have 8 more years of education

than she does, so yeah, I think it is my privilege.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

59. Hey, that's the field you chose to go into. She went into another one. Not her fault and not your

priviledge.

[Skittles]

86. education does not make you intelligent

and a truly intelligent person would know that

[cgrindley]

112. Who said anything about intelligence? Learn to read.

I wrote that since I had more education, I deserved to make more money than someone with less education.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

122. And that is flat out wrong. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.

[cgrindley]

135. So you'll be telling your kids to avoid college?

The world works that way almost all of the time.

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new04_001.htm

[noamnety]

150. "I DESERVE to make more money"

"The world works that way almost all of the time."

No, the world does NOT work that way almost all of the time. For MOST of the population, it does NOT work this way. This is what I was talking about when I refered to standpoint theory below, when I said people at the bottom of the privilege heap tend to have a more accurate world view than people at the top. It's a decidedly MALE perspective to be surprised that you have more education than someone, yet earn less money. For women, it's the norm to have a higher level of education than a man, yet earn less money.

So here would be an example of privilege: Men feel entitled to make more money than a woman with less education.


UNITED STATES: MALES
.............................................Relative
...............................Median........earnings
...............................earnings.......(US Med=100)

21 to 64 years................$37,912.........115.9
Not a high school graduate...$23,915..........73.1
High school graduate.........$31,628..........96.7
Some college.................$37,681.........115.2
Bachelor degree..............$51,176.........156.4
Advanced degree..............$66,328.........202.7



UNITED STATES: FEMALES

.............................................Relative
...............................Median........earnings
...............................earnings.......(US Med=100)

21 to 64 years................$27,959..........85.5
Not a high school graduate...$16,954..........51.8
High school graduate.........$22,363..........68.4
Some college.................$27,199..........83.1
Bachelor degree..............$36,267.........110.8
Advanced degree..............$45,577.........139.3

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/earnings.html

[cgrindley]

196. Nonsense

It's basic fairness. A person with more education should make more money than a person with less education. They deserve it. It's got nothing to do with gender.

[noamnety]

215. standpoint theory

In fact, it DOES have to do with gender, a lot. So your perception is off there.

The magic question is ... are you more outraged at your personal situation, or at the overall statistics showing that overwhelmingly women are disadvantaged in this regard - that the system is unfair to them, as a class? Can you acknowledge that this is a systemic problem for women?

(Wish I had the race disparity statistics as well; if anyone's got them, please post them!)

[uppityperson]

274. "they deserve it"? So that is why a person gets educated, to make more money?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

155. It depends on what field you go into.

An English professor with a PhD will likely make less than a plumber.

It seems like you're just bitter about the field you chose to go into and that your wife is more successful than you.

I don't plan on having children, but I would want them to go into whatever would make them happy, regardless of the pay.

[cgrindley]

197. Yeah, most likely

It still stings. It's still not fair.

With the exception of the plumber part. Plumbers are worth their weight in gold. I don't begrudge them anything, and a formal apprenticeship in a trade is easily the equivalent in education as a BA.

[bobbolink]

62. Could you pleeeez start explaining some of that priviledge so some of those

who are so ready and eager to judge homeless people, as I was until just recently??

It's amazing how much people don't get!

It would be great if you would speak up to them!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[noamnety]

63. To understand that privilege

You'd have to compare like groups, and you'd have to compare them over the course of an entire life, not the worst of circumstances in your life to average circumstances in theirs.

Compare how a homeless abled white man is treated to how a homeless black man with PTSD is treated. If you cleaned yourself up a bit (found a shower and clean clothes), could you reasonably go into a suburban public library and spend a day there without getting stalked by staff like you're a criminal, or asked to leave?

What were the circumstances that got you off the street? Were they the result of networking with white people that you had connections with? Were they the result of your gender? Did you feel pressured during that time to resort to prostitution? Did people assume you were a prostitute? Were you able to at least walk down a street alone without fearing being raped? Was your accent and education such that if the police questioned you, you could talk your way out of going to prison?

Lastly, I think it might be a sign of privilege if you assume, when you hear someone talking about privilege, that all we are talking about is your financial circumstances, rather than the sum total of how every person interacts with you for your entire life - REGARDLESS of your current financial situation.

[omega minimo]

65. Great thread. THANKS TO ALL for the insights and for keeping it going

There are a lot of clues here. Here's one:


"when you hear someone talking about privilege, that all we are talking about is your financial circumstances, rather than the sum total of how every person interacts with you for your entire life - REGARDLESS of your current financial situation."

:applause: thanks for spelling that out. that's an important part of this discussion.



LWFERN FOR PRESIDENT :yourock:

[bobbolink]

123. Or, you can get to the right side of your brain, and help folks understand

and develop compassion.

[noamnety]

71. Findings on Inadvertent Gender Bias in the Evaluation of Candidates

Just stumbled across this, from http://www.virginia.edu/vpfa/tutorial-11.html

(snip)

--A study of recommendation letters for faculty positions at a large medical school found that letters written for women tended to be shorter and to lack basic features that were included in men's letters, such as mention of the applicant's research or mention of a title like "Head of Pediatric Cardiology" (Trix and Psenka, 2003).

(snip)

-- A study investigating the peer review process for awarding postdoctoral fellowships from the Swedish Medical Research Council found that to be awarded the same competence score as a male colleague, a female scientist needed to publish approximately 3 extra papers in Science or Nature, or 20 extra papers in excellent specialist journals (Wenneras and Wold, 1997).

-- A study of randomly chosen academic psychologists showed that both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a male applicant over a female applicant with identical records, giving more weight to teaching, research, and service experience of the male applicant. (Steinpres, Anders, and Ritzke, 1999).

It is important to note that most participants in these studies were unaware of their tendencies towards gender bias.

[jeffrey_X]

76. Not at all.

i'm a straight, 38 year-old, white middle class male who cried last night watching the King Letters on CNN.

[Hidden Stillness]

80. All Individuals and Groups are Bigoted--All of Them/Us

Hello, enemies here on DU. First of all, I had no idea that women of any kind were privileged (or "priveledged," or anything else); I thought women were oppressed--unless of course, they are the property of males, or are their mirrors, with which case whatever the male has includes the woman. Like some people on this website, I used to be middle class (because of a MALE'S income), but am now poor. I can't pay off my credit card bill no matter how little I put on it, I have a car that is currently dead and can't afford to get it fixed, and so I walk, in snow and below 20-degree temperatures, to get where I need to go. Nobody helps me. If this is "privilege," you can go to Hell.

One of the people cheering you on, on this thread, once wrote of white women, on your thread "Hatred & Cynicism Toward 'Blonde White Girls' is Bigoted, Divisive &" :

"Blonde white girls apparently could give a rat's ass about that..." (Title)

"... it's ALL about them. ALL the time. NOTHING else matters. Talk about ANYTHING else, to say nothing of PROPORTIONATE references, is REVERSE BIGOTRY.
"What a bunch of lying bigoted assholes they be." (Message)

This received many outraged replies on that thread. Isn't it bigotry when a black male does it? Explain why. You appear to be laboring under the standard delusion that bigotry is a group thing, that bad/privileged groups do, and good/oppressed groups cannot do; it is an individual thought that anyone can have. Whatever life of privilege you live, most people on Welfare/General Assistance, are white women; most people on Aid to Families With Dependant Children, are white women. Most people with minimum wage jobs, no pensions and no benefits, are white women, and almost all the rest are black and Hispanic women.

On this thread, you asked, "ever watch COPS?" The several times over the years I have watched that program, besides noticing the heavy editing, I have noticed the shitty treatment of women suspects by male police, taunting and unecessary violence, and the way they always tell women witnesses to shut up, asking only male witnesses for accounts of incidents, which they then believe completely; case closed. Another infuriating thing I have noticed is a cruel, mocking treatment, complete with laughter and even imitations, of people who are obviously mentally ill and don't know what is happening, or who say incoherent things. There are at least a few episodes of that series that are so disgusting, with male cops laughing at and taunting people who appear schizophrenic and unaware of the meaning of questions, that I hate the fucking bastards--it is as if there is no modern, "compassionate" world of understanding at all. I do not expect DU, however, to have any interest here.

It is not a simple world, and it is not the 1950s anymore; for good or for bad.

[omega minimo]

82. Well HS, you've put your thumb in the eye of the storm, the central point

"under the standard delusion that bigotry is a group thing, that bad/privileged groups do, and good/oppressed groups cannot do; it is an individual thought that anyone can have."

Indeed. The bigotry goes both/all ways. The animal fears The Other.

So is it reptilian brain, mammalian brain, human brain that triggers a deadly and automatic inability to separate individual behavior from group behavior? That sets up defense mechanism if the "privileged" group comes under any sort of scrutiny?

Why are some so engorged with venom if the behavior of their group is questioned, as if the individual is under attack?

[spoony]

92. Because groups are made up of individuals

When arrows rain down on a group, it isn't the group that hurts.

Everyone belongs to some group which, when generalised about negatively, they will defend with passion.

When jerks say unions are for lazy workers, I get defensive. When some say that religious people are gullible, uneducated, blah blah, I get defensive. When Coulter or one of them says Democrats hate America and want the troops dead, I get defensive. And yes, when white people are taken to be bigots who are showered with advantages their whole lives, I get defensive.

I know they aren't talking about every member of the group. I know I'm not in those descriptions. But it does, and frankly should, activate some bristles when those arrows start falling.

[MedleyMisty]

113. I'm white

And it doesn't bother me. I understand that the majority of white people are indeed bigots who have been showered with advantages their whole lives.

The main objection that I see is financial situations. I think lwfern already covered that, but should people start making a point about how the majority of white people who are bigots with advantages are also at least middle class? (NOT ALL, just the majority)

Sometimes I wonder if that's why so many posters on liberal boards seem to have a much different view of the South than I do. I'm not middle-class. I don't hang out with people who live in McMansions in gated communities and drive SUVs (and yes, if you're wondering, the group that makes me struggle with my own prejudice is rich white people). I hang out with people who work at Arby's and drive old cars and live in run-down apartments. The majority of the white people in that situation are far more likely to be dating black people than spewing racist hate about them, at least in my experience. Which is why I get defensive when people start painting the South with a wide brush.

We had a dictionary from the 70s when I was little. It had pictures of all the presidents. It stopped with Nixon, because it was a really old dictionary.

You know what all the presidents of the US have in common? They are all white men. I would say that the majority of them were probably rich white men.

Until that changes (and yes, I know there's a chance for the beginning of change next year), I think that maybe white people should develop a thicker skin and learn to recognize their privilege and the fact that they live in a bigoted society. Even if they themselves are not bigoted and even if they weren't born into a rich family.

Like me. I certainly haven't had all sorts of advantages showered on me. But if I had a different skin color but the same amount of money, people in general would make different assumptions about me and treat me differently than they do now. Like lwfern said, it's not just about financial situation.

[alittlelark]

94. Go to bed..... You'll feel better (and make more sense) in the AM

it's all cool.B-)

[Zhade]

100. Speak for yourself, unless you can offer evidence for each of us.

NT!

[alittlelark]

95. We could have used in in a thread a few days ago....

Can't find the link now - but you know which one;)

[noamnety]

110. Black children prefer white dolls

From the DU video forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x15998

Feels like it needs to be added here, for those that don't get it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

111. Does that keep you from trying to be a better person???

I'll get back to you on the weirdness of it.

[omega minimo]

117. If you read the thread, you'll see that question is unecessary

[ScreamingMeemie]

166. I see it as very necessary.

Extremely necessary in fact.

[omega minimo]

206. Not if you read the thread.

The answer is there. :hi:

[GeorgeGist]

114. Not really...

unless you have faith in your faults and irrelevant traits.

[bryant69]

121. Why yes - you should feel proud of what a special person you are

for having understood and accepted your latent bigotry - myself I'm a white straight middle class American who denies his latent bigotry, so I'm clearly inferior.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[omega minimo]

124. it seems simpler than a choice between pride and paranoia

omega minimo (1000+ posts)  Mon Feb-19-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #98
104. The OP doesn't endorse "being a bigot"
The OP endorses being honest with each other AND OURSELVES!!!!!!!! about cultural influences, societal forces and internalized attitudes.




It seems simpler than a choice between pride and paranoia. And the question remains: why is is impossible for some white and/or male people to make the DISTINCTION b/w the societal forces that grant them privilege by birth (and discuss those honestly or at least ALLOW others to do so) AND the way that those forces and privilege play out for them individually................................? How hard is that? HONESTLY?

Those who can't make the distinction, who won't allow the discussion, who take it personally when larger forces are scrutinized, seem to limit themselves to that range of thought between pride and paranoia.

What are they so afraid of?

[bryant69]

127. I suppose I feel i have enough reasons to hate myself without

adding more.

Bryant

[Beelzebud]

125. I'll not engage in self-hatred to make others "feel good".

[omega minimo]

126. Well that's a bizarre interpretation but part of the unanswered question

See #124

"What are they so afraid of?" Why the limited range of thought, the paranoia, the bizarre assumption that "self-hatred" is required to "feel good"?

is it a self-perpetuating mechanism, preservation programming hard-wired into the organism after generations and millennia, an internalized protective paranoid voice in the back of the lizard brain saying:

"IF YOU LET YOUR GUARD DOWN THEY WILL EAT YOU ALIVE!!!111" :yoiks: :scared: :bounce: :hide: :bounce: :yoiks:
"IF YOU LET YOUR GUARD DOWN THEY WILL DO TO YOU WHAT YOU DID TO THEM!!!!!!!111"

*************

bobbolink hit it in #123.

COMPASSION.

Compassion.

Self awarenesss is not "self-hatred." Self awareness leading to compassion for others is not a patronizing "feel good" pat on the head.

It takes a certain amount of courage and self-love to look beyond oneself at the big picture and be honest about how we fit into it.

Maybe the fear some have about this isn't fear of retribution, but fear of responsibility.

[Beelzebud]

128. Or maybe I just don't feel the need to apologize for my sex and race.

I was born a white, straight man. I can't change that. I'm not going to make excuses for it, or attempt to apologize for it.

I have not lived my life as a racist or a sexist, so I'm not going to pretend I need to "confess my sins" for things I never did.

[bettyellen]

129. the OP was about acknowledging the advantages- which does not imply you needed to "do" anything

to get a leg up on women or people of color. It's asking about why men don;t want to own up to how things are- and you seem a fine example of this with your defensive posture.
so you'd hate yourself if you had to admit that your demographic makes many things in life an easier journey for you (through no fault of your own) ?
head in the sand suits you better? do you seriously think you're the one exemption who never gets a better deal because of the body you're walking around in?

[Beelzebud]

131. You don't even know me.

As an overweight, "hippy freak" with long hair and a bad case of rosacea, I don't think I'm getting many free passes because of my looks.

But keep generalizing. Keep stereotyping.

I think threads like this are meaningless. There is a word for this: white guilt.

[bettyellen]

133. an overweight hippy freak woman with roseaca is in bigger trouble than you, bub....

women are waay more judged than men on their looks. i could cite you a zillion studies, but we both know this to be the case.
it's not a zero sum game you know, you or us. but, thanks for letting your bitterness interfere with A SIMPLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the reality of how our society works. shame that's just too much for you.

[GaYellowDawg]

138. Hm.

women are waay more judged than men on their looks

As a fat man, I call bullshit.

[bettyellen]

141. if you believe yourself to be an exception- than why do you still avoid acknowledging how

society operates?
studies show that white men have a privileged existance- it's not even up for debate- and you want to avoid discussing it because you are a rare exception?
makes no sense.

[GaYellowDawg]

163. Well, that's rather unfair.

How do you even know what I am? I haven't taken part in this conversation except to tell you that I'm male and fat. Stop swinging wildly.

I agree that white men have a privileged existence. I think that you'd get a better response by reccommending that people read Christine Sleeter instead of having at them. She's a whole lot better at communicating these ideas than you are, as she does it with neither condescension nor anger.

[bettyellen]

204. i only know you're another man claiming exception to what studies have shown to be true for years

the only difference is that you want to rip into me telling me to be nicerto you than you are (unattractive, ain't i?, LOL) all the whilewhile claiming to be an ally.
yeah yeah, i'm sure you're one of those bees i would have caught with honey,and that you say shit like that to the guys here at DU all the time.
:X

[GaYellowDawg]

224. Bzzzzzzzzzz.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

Polemicism is rarely effective. There's more than just nice to recommend Christine Sleeter over you. She's a lot more literate, too, but that, among other things, is why she's published and you're flailing away anonymously on a message board, doing no good to the world at large.

[bettyellen]

242. wow, you want an award for reading one book...

because that's sort of what it sounds like- you want a pat on the head?

[TahitiNut]

142. Silly fellow. Men aren't judged by their weight or clothing.

Any man who thinks so, must have a small penis. After all, that's the basis of all male problems: a penis that's not large enough to satisfy a woman (whose vagina can accommodate an 8# 22" baby). So, if he drives a Porsche or Hummer or Austin Healy or anything flashy or expensive ... it's OBVIOUSLY because he has a small penis (i.e. under 4#). If a man's wife finds a lover, it's OBVIOUSLY because the husband can't satisfy her. He's called a cuckold. (It means "small penis." That's why there's no such word that applies to women.) So, it's not about being fat; it's about a small penis. Any male able to wear pants without a codpiece has a small penis. Isn't it obvious?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bettyellen]

145. wow, what is the deal with all the hyperbole? it adds nothing an makes you soun like a defensive

and quite silly fellow.
obviously you haven't read many studies, because women are judged ontheir looks much more openly and harshly. but, feel free to make men feel like they deserve special victim statusand blather on about penises if that's your focus.
you're going to find a way to avoid intelligent discussion any way.

[TahitiNut]

185. Well, so much for "open discussion." Even when I agree with you, you insult me.

I said "Men aren't judged by their weight or clothing." (Nobody ever said "clothes make the man." That's delusional.)

Yet you claim "obviously you haven't read many studies" and proceed to lament the sad lot of women "judged on their looks much more openly and harshly." Well, let's certainly make sure it's a competition ... and that'll make everything OK.
:eyes:

So, let's just get to ONE sorry FACT: Treating human beings as commodities is a fundamentally evil and immoral act. Only commodities are sorted according to 'type.' "Objectification" is the SAME as commoditization. Treating human labor as a commodity is one of the more perverse aspects - as is flesh-peddling of other kinds.

The beneficiaries of the commoditization of human beings are those who personally PROFIT from buying, selling, marketing, and brokering those commodities. Flesh-peddlers. "Owners."

There's a subordinate evil: Seeing ourselves not as unique individuals but as commodities, "one each." It's often understandable - and always wrong.



You say "you soun(sic) like a defensive and quite silly fellow."

Well, my sun rises and sets on what you think I "soun(sic) like." Nevermind that has nothing to do with "open discussion" and everything to do with attacking the other person.

You give me permission to "feel free to make men feel like they deserve special victim status."
I hope you don't mind (uh-huh) if I don't take you up on that. Never have. Never will. Your permission is not my license.

You then pave the loving and respectful path toward "open discussion" by saying "you're going to find a way to avoid intelligent discussion any way."

Wow. :wow:

"Intelligent discussion"?? Where? I hope you'll pardon me (I won't hold my breath) if I say that I doubt some would recognize it if they gave it a lap dance.

:shrug:

[bettyellen]

189. you totally lost me with the women have big vaginas rant, but good luck to you!

and that penis you worry about. LOL.



Good luck with your isssues-->

" After all, that's the basis of all male problems: a penis that's not large enough to satisfy a woman (whose vagina can accommodate an 8# 22" baby). So, if he drives a Porsche or Hummer or Austin Healy or anything flashy or expensive ... it's OBVIOUSLY because he has a small penis (i.e. under 4#). If a man's wife finds a lover, it's OBVIOUSLY because the husband can't satisfy her. He's called a cuckold. (It means "small penis." That's why there's no such word that applies to women.) So, it's not about being fat; it's about a small penis. "

[TahitiNut]

192. I didn't lose you. You were already lost.

:shrug: So much (again!) for your hypocritical lament about "open discussion."

[bettyellen]

194. i found the penis and vagina tangent pointless and silly - your obsession but of no interest

or relevance. Also, it;s just TMI , I'm just saying. ':P

[noamnety]

153. Statistics on obesity and wages support bettyellen's position

Obese women more likely to suffer wage discrimination than men

The MTSU researchers found that the economic cost of obesity, or the "pound penalty," as they called it, was much greater for women than for men. But both sexes experienced a persistent obesity-related wage penalty over the first two decades of their careers.

After controlling for other variables influencing income, obesity was found to lower a man's annual earnings by as much as 2.3% and a woman's by as much as 6.2%.

"Four and a half percent may not sound like a lot, but over the course of a career it can really add up," Baum says. "If you earn $50,000 on an annual basis, that is $2,250. If you multiply that over a 40-year career, that's almost $100,000."

http://onhealth.webmd.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55883

[bettyellen]

156. stats be damned, these guys won't care till they are the BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES of discrimination!!!

only then will they deign to even discuss the matter rationally.
at least that's the take on it I'm getting from these "pooor fellows" on this thread.
Yeah, they have to get to the top of the heap in order to be fair to others. Yep, makes sense.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

182. i'm not being sarcastic, that's the rationale behind quite a few of these posts....

they are not the big beneficiaries of discrimination, so they are saying 1) it doesn't happen 2) they couldn;t give a fuck if it does because they ain't doing well either...

which one do YOU pick? otr did you find a new reason to denigrate the topic at hand?


and BTW, i'm not buying the "hurting my cause" with sarcasm bullshit. these guys are whining about their penis size and paycheck. for fucks sake, they totally lost my respect with their whining about not being better off than the women they know!

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

199. actually what you did was reply sacrastically to me (Riiiight) and accuse ME

or being sarcastic when addressing others people's evasive bullshit. instead of commnenting on their evasion of the issue (like an ally actually would) you attacked me. LOL...
you didn;t post one thing about the OP, or the denials on this thread.... but are again playing that " I'd listen to you if you were a nice girl"card AGAIN. Yeah, I'll be a nice girl and shut up for you. Mr. Friend of women. LOL.
You funny!

[GaYellowDawg]

223. Wrong again.

You haven't been posting about the OP, either, so you might as well jump off of that particular soapbox.

I tried to point out to you earlier that I came to this conversation late after you immediately assigned someone else's words and position to me based solely on the fact that I'm male. I should have every right to give you hell about that, and I think the moderator was wrong to delete my post.

I never told you to shut up. I told you that you'd do a better job of bringing people to your view by being nice than by being caustic. That's not gender-specific advice. I don't give a damn whether you're a "nice girl" or not. Further, I don't give a damn whether you're nice at all. I do give a damn whether you're nice to me, and that has nothing to do with your gender.

I doubt you'd ever shut up for me, but it's sweet of you to offer.

[bettyellen]

225. i was pointing out how people avoided the OP. but you were among them, so it's no stretch you'd

want to ignore that, since you wanted to make it all about you and being overweight.
your post was deleted because you, big intellectual that you are, resorted to calling me names.
and your original complaint to me was about my tone, i should be less sarcastic or whatever and your repeated entreaties for me to soften it are, after this last post of denying this coupled with the other ones calling me names, is just hilarious. yeah, i'll be nice just to make lil old you happy. you're a stitch!
:P

[GaYellowDawg]

228. You know as well as I do...

...that not all posts in subthreads have anything to do with the OP. The accusation that I was ignoring the OP was nothing more than a straw man. You know it as well as I do. In fact, I told you in another subthread that white males are privileged. You're conveniently choosing to ignore it.

My first reply to you was relatively benign, and I upped the ante the second you did. You're simply trying to deny your role in an argument by blaming it on the big old bad man. What I called you was much less name-calling than an accurate description. But you keep your caustic, condescending, smug self on rolling. More power to you. :eyes:

[bettyellen]

231. if you need to resort to more name calling, please bother someone else

this is beneath me.
:hi:

[GaYellowDawg]

233. No problem

but I doubt there is very much actually below you.

[bettyellen]

241. another personal attack, how lovely of you!

[GaYellowDawg]

266. ...

...

[GaYellowDawg]

267. ..

..

[GaYellowDawg]

268. So much for shutting up.

You've engaged in personal attacks all throughout the entire thread. Any time that anyone has disagreed with your specific view, you've attacked them - not with names, but with labels. You use a legitimate phenomenon - oppression of women - as an excuse to be as much of a jerk as possible.

Feel free to have the last word, but it'll be because I've put you on "ignore." Please rest assured that it has nothing to do with your gender, race, or any other physical or cultural characteristic. It's all about your personality. And it's hard looking at that ugly cat. Bye. :hi:

[bettyellen]

270. i can't believe that BS post took you five attempts. that would have to be a record. LOL.

see that's not a personal insult, it's making fun of your post! learn the difference.
thank fucking god the unoriginal personal attacks and BS will stop now. cya!
:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

271. Very Well Said.

:toast:

[omega minimo]

148. acknowledging the advantages on a broad scale without fear

without defensiveness, without seeing it as an indictment on a personal level. Acknowledging the difference b/w the societal scale and the personal scale, dropping the defensiveness................ allowing the discussion.

So it might help to NOT personalize it.. I get it-- there are folks who are so focused on their own predicament-- esp. in BushAmerica 2007-- that the suggestion of how they are privileged seems abstract. IT IS!!! It is a cultural abstraction that affects all of us to some degree or another in a braziillion different ways and degrees. And the fact that some folks can't see it, acknowledge it, relate to it or discuss it RATIONALLY sure as hell gets in the way around here.

I used some "walking down the street" examples with my friend hfojvt and they missed the mark. I thought they would help someone relate to what it must be like for a black man to see people cross the street at the sight of him, or what it must be like for a woman who doesn't feel safe on the street at night or maybe anytime..............................

It's too hard to bridge this gap. So if we reeinforce personalizing it ("do you seriously think you're the one exemption who never gets a better deal because of the body you're walking around in?") it may make it harder to see the distinction and the broader point:

These forces affect all of us. They are key to the various problems we are here to address (!!) (That's a big reason for the resistance to discussing them :think: ) The discussion is important.

[bettyellen]

164. if i learned one thing from this thread- is that people want to believe that they are the exception

and i can give them that. what i won't do is accept that there is any reason to derail or devalue this conversation over this exception.
It's time to be honest about this, and discuss what the reality is, instead of grasping at straws in order to avoid it.

[TahitiNut]

130. It's like "Original SIn" ... even being born again won't help on DU.

So, it's necessary to admit one's innate guilt and tithe, tithe, tithe.

[bettyellen]

134. how is an acknowledgement of how society works such a sacrifice?

tithe, my ass.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

146. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

137. who asked ya to?

Can you look at the topic as a postive rather than a negative?

With respect to your reply, it sounds like what you already think, a readymade argument.... did you read anything in my post with an open mind to another way of looking at this?

Is it a matter of education-- that some people haven't studied history, sociology, any subjects that show the process of western civilization........

I am not advocating "confessing sins." It's more a matter of self-regulation, equilibrium. To recognize influences beyond us and how they may be internalized-- or not.

[noamnety]

139. "things you never did" is part of the problem.

If you've been partaking in threads where the OP used gender slams, without calling them on it, you've done "nothing."

Participation in such threads without calling out the offensive behavior condones them.

Calling the depiction of women in politics in demeaning photoshopped sexual poses a "bullshit non-issue" - and telling the class of people that are offended that they are acting like "fundies" is basically "doing nothing."

When someone with less privilege than you is offended by an ad campaign that they feel insults them, telling them it is "much ado about nothing" is "doing nothing."

Nobody is asking you to apologize for being a straight white male. Nobody is asking you to make excuses for that or feel guilty for it. What they are saying is that you have a responsibility to people with less privilege to listen to them when they say they are being hurt in some way by the actions of those with privilege, to take it seriously, and to WORK toward eliminating the disparities.

The easy out is to stomp your feet and interpret that to mean we want you to be less straight or less white - cause those things obviously aren't gonna change, so that would require "doing nothing" on your part. The harder option is to interpret it to mean we want you to actively fight against discrimination and prejudice, and have enough respect for the people who are experiencing it to not put your opinion above theirs and be dismissive. That actually takes effort on your part. We're asking you not to be so sure that your white male perspective is superior to the view of people claiming they are experiencing racism or sexism or some other kind of bigotry.

A particularly important implication of standpoint theory is that while all perspectives on social life are limited, some are more limited than others. Sandra Harding argues that those in positions of high power have a vested interest in preserving their place in the hierarchy, so their views of social life are more distorted than the views of persons who gain little or nothing from existing power relationships. Another reason is that those in groups labeled subordinate may have fuller understandings is that they have to understand both their own perspective and the viewpoints of persons who have more power. To survive, subjugated persons have to understand people with power, but the reverse is not true. From this it follows that marginalized groups have unique insights into the nature and workings of society. Women, minorities, gays and lesbians, people of lower socioeconomic class, and others who are outside the cultural center may see the society from a perspective that is less distorted, less biased, and more layered than those who occupy more central standpoints. Marginalized perspectives can inform all of us about how our society operates. Maria Lugones and Elizabeth Spelman point out that one of the privileges of dominant groups is the freedom not to try to understand the perspective of less privileged groups. They don't need to learn about others in order to survive.

From Gendered Lives, Julia T. Wood.

I think everyone here can see that in action by looking at our own perspectives on life, compared to the Bush family's perspective. His entire family is privileged, so they don't "get" what it's like to be in a lower socioeconomic class. That's how we end up with statements from Barbara Bush (speaking of the Katrina victims) like: "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them." It's how we end up with dismissive statements from bush that some fine day all the death in Iraq will "look like just a comma."

That's a perfect example of standpoint theory - that those at the top of the ladder cannot fathom what's actually happening on the lower rungs. The perspective of those at the bottom is more accurate. Coming to terms with that is an incredibly difficult thing to do, to recognize that someone else's perspective of their own life - or even on society as a whole - is more accurate than your own. Normally we have our world view, and we accept that it is right, because it fits everything we personally have experienced. We all have a tendency (and this relates back to the OP) to believe our world view is superior to others. If I wanted to poke at you a bit to provoke you, I'd call that a white male supremacy frame of mind - the assumption that your world view is necessarily superior/supreme. It takes kind of flipping your brain inside out to come to terms with the idea that someone else's worldview might actually be more accurate - maybe even superior to yours - based on their standing in society.

[bettyellen]

143. i was more trying to get an acknowledement on how they benefit without doing a darned thing being

except "fitting in" better in any given situation that gives you an opportunity...... because i think perfectly nice people who may even step up to the plate in situations such as you have outlined, are often in denial about how they are given advantage on a daily basis. everybody likes to think they earned what they have fairly- and not by having someone else push them to the top of the pile because of demographics. but of course it happens all the time.

[noamnety]

147. That's true

I was just put off by the assertion that the goal of this discussion was to make someone less white/less male/less straight, or to make them feel guilty about it, because I think that's a cop out.

And I was put off by their belief that they've never had a racist/sexist thought, because I do think it's racist/sexist (in subtle ways that we don't recognize, more out of ignorance than hate in a KKK way) to be dismissive of the experiences of marginalized groups, or to perpetuate systems that marginalize them by not speaking out when others are being offensive.

[bettyellen]

149. every man here who avoids the heart of this discusion by insisting HIS LIFE IS UNFAIR

manages somehow to use this an an excuse to avoid discussing the FACCT of white mail privilege... it's a road they don't want to go down because they are not AS privileged as their brothers, so they feel no need to address it.
again and again that pattern has emerged on this thread. every man is an exception because he's not well paid, or handsome or thin- they are all the real victims of society!~
what do you make of it?

[LostInAnomie]

151. It's hard not to personalize an issue when the claim is that by your birth...

... you are privileged. Especially, when most of the privilege being discussed isn't actually codified or quantified. I'll admit that people have prejudices (although I find bigotry a bit harsh) but that is just human nature. But, to claim that by birth that every white male has an advantage over every other racial, ethnic, and gender group is disingenuous. Every person with a socially considered positive trait has an advantage over anyone that does not have the same trait. Tall people have it easier than short people, thin people have it easier than fat, attractive people have it easier than non-attractive people, strong people have it easier than weak people.

To generalize that white heterosexual males (somehow the focus of this thread has turned towards males even though the OP did not) have it easier than everyone else is incredibly simplistic thinking that does not take into account all the different aspects of social life.

[bettyellen]

157. all aspects of social life being equal, the premise of discrimination is undeniable- unless you're

making excuses for it.
which it would seem is your entire point.
relatively speaking, white men ARE BORN with more privilege. it's just reality, and disingenuous to WILLFULLY IGNORE IT and REACH HARD to find exceptions do to size of paycheck, penis or waistline. the point of the OP, and you are just emphasizing it, why can;t people discuss it without this defensive posture? why do they look to make excuses or justify the inequity instead of acknowledging it?

[LostInAnomie]

162. I wouldn't say that all aspects of social life are equal though.

There is a huge difference between finding a job and who gets waited on at a restaurant first. Being white and male isn't necessarily going to help in either of those circumstances. There are myriad characteristics that come into play, attractiveness, dress, perceived social class, eloquence, etc. When you single out two character traits that cover a large portion of the population and then generalize that they inherently have an advantage over all others it causes people to become defensive because it is not necessarily true.

Say for instance you were interviewing two people for a position. The first interviewee is a short, fat, bald, blemished, poorly dressed, poorly spoken, white male. The second interviewee is a tall, thin, beautiful, nicely dressed, eloquent, black woman. If they both have the same qualifications who do you think would get hired? Probably, the black woman. Being a white male isn't some kind of trump card.

The OP could have just as easily exchanged "beautiful well spoken upper class woman" and the exact same would have been true.

[bettyellen]

165. It's not a phenomenon you can actually study without "equalizing" other factors

it sounds like you're not too familiar with how research studies are done. Rest assured, when all things are considered it is still, in this day and age, an advantage to be a straight white man on your job application. It is what it is, a very broad trend in our society, a bias of employers. no matter the excuses you make.
Are you attempting to deny this when it;s been proven in dozens of studies for the last 60 years? Seriously? Do you think women and black people are NOT at a disadvantage?

[LostInAnomie]

226. I wasn't aware I was making any excuses.

I was just trying to have an open and honest discussion.

I'm TOO familiar with research studies, and the limitations of narrowing a research topic to make it feasible. Having degrees in Psych. and Sociology will do that.

If you don't give consideration to "equalizing" factors you aren't considering the totality of the actual phenomenon. To ignore characteristics like looks, height, dress, education, class etc. that play a huge role in how people are treated is incredibly myopic. Like I said in my earlier post, being a white male isn't a trump card that cancels out other factors in social life. So many other factors come into play during our social interactions than race and gender that it is ridiculous to focus only on them. I would argue that economic class plays a far larger role in how society treats you.

"Do you think women and black people are NOT at a disadvantage?"

Depends on what you are asking about. If you are asking about employment you may be right (although I still think class plays a bigger role). If you are talking about getting into college or getting a scholarship, I would say "No." Females are attending college at far greater rates than their male counterparts which will eventually lead to better employment. The situation that you are talking about is very important.

To make the generalization that white males ALWAYS have the advantage is just not true.

[bettyellen]

230. it's not a "maybe " that payscales for women are 70% of what men's are -

for comparable work- that stat has seen very little improvement in 20 years. So, speculation on future earnings remains just that.
So you can use affirmative action or women in general excelling academically to try and show that men are now at a disadvantage? LOL, damned affirmative action, I knew it would work against us! It's funny women try and make up the difference by excelling in school and people will slap them down for it, as if it is happening at the expense of men. As I said, that remains to be seen. When they are running things, get back to me!
I agree with you that class is a big factor also- but I also see that argument is used to take away the spotlight from discussion of on race gender issues. But it It's not an either/ or thing. Class issues won;t be resolved so easily that women can afford to wait ..... sexism and racism won;t just go away on their own. Women and minorities have quite a bit of ground they need to gain, but it sure ain;t being handed to them.

[LostInAnomie]

239. Where did I say anything about affirmative action?

Do you see everything as an attempt to delegitimize women's gains? It's not a zero/sum gain. It's just a simple fact. Women for the past few years have been doing much better in education than their male counterparts and will reap the rewards. (Although, there is research that points to the reason boys are doing worse is because of curriculum changes that work to the disadvantage of their physiological growth.)

I personally take a very materialist view of discrimination. Since minorities have traditionally had less access to resources they have been easy to marginalize. The more access they have the better off they will be. That is why I don't view the "privilege" that this thread says white males have as being a matter of race and gender since it is very easy to point out areas where this privilege trickles down. I view it as a matter of economics. Where the resources are you will find the privilege, and it just happens that the resources have traditionally been in the hands of a relatively few white men.

Since there are no longer codified laws to keep women and minorities oppressed circumstance will continue to change for the better.

[bettyellen]

240. well the materialist view is for me, something nice to HOPE for.. in the meantime

the REALITY is women and minorities are not even close to there. I'm not delegitimizing the gains, trust me, I am sick of hearing we are already there now, that there is nothing to fight for, no reason for complaint.... And you hear that even here, we are n equal footing, and the stats don;t bear that out. Not in any measurable way. I guess the trickling is just taking too long as far as I am concerned. 70% of a man's salary after all these years, is just bullshit to be honest. It' a damn good reason to complain. and when we do see the rewards, get back to me, because i've been waiting 30 years, and womens wages as compared to mens have stalled for no good or quantifiable reason (despite us getting more and better educations over those years) this happened concurrently with a feminist backlash and it makes me wary . perhaps it's easier for you to be hopeful, but i wish younger women today didn't appear to be so complacent.
my reference to affirmative action had to do with your comment about scholarships, surely it is the needs based ones that are actually getting a greater percentage of minorities in our colleges as well as some more women on titleX. and if people wanted to be so colorblind about who was running the show and ignore gender bias 30 years ago, we wouldn't have made any of these gains either,so i'm not sure when you think the time to acknowledge these tproblems is past us yet. things certainly didn;t happen because people ignored the reality around them or deemed them good enough or imagine they would improve on their own. right now there's a backlash against title X as well as reproductive rights and affirmative action. i think it's still important to acknowledge the inequities still exist.
i hope you're right and things get better and better for women- at a much improved pace. i truly do.
:hi:

[mvd]

160. Yes I acknowledge the problem, but it also has to be..

acknowledged that as white people become the minority majority party, the gap will likely lessen. It has lessened over time, stopped maybe briefly by Bush and his cronies.

Also, all people have some latent prejudices.

[mvd]

173. Another thing

White males are born with some negatives, too. One of them is having more pressure to succeed (a psychological issue,) something that comes from the group as a whole having privilege. White men's actions while in the company of other groups are more likely to be seen as racist and/or sexist. The OP is a good one and we do have to address it, but there are also other things to consider.

[bettyellen]

181. Absolutely, thanks for seeing it's a bit more complicated than these knee jerk deniers

would have us believe. And I appreciate the fact that you are not taking it 100% personally.

[mvd]

213. Thanks back- I'm glad to see some agreement..

on this thread. :hi:

[Stu DeBeouf]

168. How's that self-hatred working for you?

n/t

[bettyellen]

177. seeing society for how it functions and admitting it's given you a leg up equals self hatered to you

that's really sad that you think being intellectually honest is so negative.
i would suggest their may be other reasons you yourself can make that leap to self hatred so quickly. Something to chew on.

[Stu DeBeouf]

207. Assuming guilt for things you have not done...

...is piling on to self loathing. Unless the OP has participated in bigoted actions, his guilt is self imposed, and unnecessary.

[bettyellen]

210. thers's no guilt except maybe between your ears kid. interesting you read it that way...

[Stu DeBeouf]

229. Huh?

You call me kid, (I'm 39)...in a condescending way, and I am still waiting for you're point. Is assuming guilt for something you personally haven't done, self-destructive? I think that it is.
I am waiting for your argument to the contrary.

[omega minimo]

188. re: "latent bigotry"

so latent is a better word than "inherent" and neither conveys the fact that we all are human animals that make judgements of others by appearance and other impressions.

When the Biden/Obama flap happened, I thought of the times that I have made a clueless assumption based on how someone looks-- and learned from it. Or the time I used a phrase that I picked up in youth, that I didn't realize was offensive and was corrected by someone-- and learned from it. Or the time I told a coworker I didn't like hearing her say "Nigger" and she came back with "I don't like it when you say 'God Damnit'. "

I was raised in a diverse community, raised to value MLK's Dream of a colorblind society. When I see African American urban youth on the street, I see kids growing up trying to look tough in a tough world. When I walk down the street, I don't look at what color someone is coming toward me, I look at how they walk. You can see the crazies a mile away.

I believe that Katrina/NOLA was genocide and am still horrified and angry that Americans were shown it on the TV screen with so little outrage and acknowledgement of what was before our very eyes.... as if it was "okay" because it was The Other. With people not "of color" not realizing that yes-- that could be you, you are not safe because you're not black and no-- it's not "okay" because they were black.

If something comes up internally, some unfamiliar image, judgement or phrase-- and it happens to all of us-- that seems bigoted, where did that come from? Do I recognize it, look at it, dispose of it as some unwelcome meme, some piece of garbage that floated from the culture and into my mind?

I don't hang on to it. I don't accept it. In myself or others. We may not talk about this process, but we have to be honest with ourselves about. And learn from it.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

198. It's weird to start a self-congratulatory thread about it

Might as well start one about being housebroken.

[SurpriseImaNinja]

200. cant believe...

WTF!?! Cant BELIEVE that this many people responded to this prompt LOL

[jpgray]

202. Welcome to DU. I wish I could say this sort of thing was unusual

:hi:

[bettyellen]

201. what's interesting is all thesuper defensive personal reactions-

lot of not me, dude
someone's so pissed off he's talking about tiny penises and big vaginal canals!
I'm glad his mom isn't here to see that.

[TahitiNut]

220. Fascinating. How many is that now?

Six? Seven? Eight? (Some have beeen removed.)

Who's "obsessed"? A person making over six slanderous, passive-agressive posts about penises and vaginas, each with increasingly descriptive adjectives? Or the person posting ONCE regarding an oft-repeated epithet on DU?

"Open discussion"? "Civility"?

Yeah. Riiiiight. :eyes:

[bettyellen]

221. what was removed? creepy misogynistic shit or fear of penis judgement paranoia?

both had no place on this thread.
:puke:

[B Calm]

208. I'm a straight, white, valuable working class American who is working

for not so valuable wages.

[bettyellen]

212. again, your point is.....?

[B Calm]

214. what you mean, again? I only posted once!

[bettyellen]

218. no, but your post echos everyone else here who feels themself not enough of the opressor, LOL...

to comment on the OP, so you justkinda halfway shit on it by saying "Not me".

hey, you all can't be the exception that doesn't benefit, it's statistically impossible.

[B Calm]

251. Who appointed you the Judge!

[Rex]

217. Define weird.

:evilgrin:

[matcom]

227. Is Anna still dead?

i'm curious

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

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

[matcom]

234. i really don't understand your post

and have no idea what you are saying. *I* was just trying to ad some 'intelligence' to this conversation

:shrug:

[Stu DeBeouf]

237. Check...

...ain't just a guy from central Europe....adding intelligence to this "conversation",is the least you can do...really.

[matcom]

238. I heard Britney shaved her head

any truth to that?

it's important

[TahitiNut]

235. Yep. Not only that, but concerns about her body's appearance have been allayed.

Live by the sword; die by the sword. :eyes:

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

250. "second head"??

:rofl:

Yep. You got all the answers.

:rofl:

[bettyellen]

253. that post owned you at "emasculated"

but of course you're back to the same old obsession. i'm going to shut my big gaping...
mouth on that one! :P

[TahitiNut]

272. Again, you resort to sleazy insults and vicious snark.

I have yet to see a post in this thread from you that didn't demean and insult any male to whom you responded. You fling your own fecal matter of "obsession" and fail to acknowledge the projection.

I posted a fairly cogent and focused response above at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=238639&mesg_id=247951
and you again engaged in insulting and condescending vomit. You totally and completely ignored the content of that post ... apparently because you're infallible in reading the "hearts and minds" of others, like Our Leader but better: over the Internet.


I've seen it repeatedly claimed that the intent of this thread was to engage in "open discussion." How'd that work out for y'all?? Judging from the tone and tenor of the remarks by you and a couple of others, I firmly doubt that the intent was as claimed.

The result reflects the real intention. Disruption, division, animosity, and more of the bile that some seem to have in abundance.


The working assumption in this thread (and others) seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Unless some guy can prove he got beaten up protecting a "safe house" for victims of sexual assault and spousal abuse, it just didn't happen and he's just another misogynist pig. Unless some guy can prove he was fired in large part because he stood up for the rights of a lesbian being treated in a hostile manner in the workplace, a lesbian who reported to him and who he was told (after he was hired in) he must terminate, then it just didn't happen and he's just another misogynist pig. Unless some guy can prove he's worked for many years in community groups and workplace task forces attempting to increase diversity, equal opportunity, and human rights, then it just didn't happen and he's just another misogynist pig. But some people abhor "making it personal" and presenting some resume. After all, everyone's a hero on the Internet - as well as athletic and good-looking. It's 80% bullshit.

You don't know SHIT about me. Nor do you know SHIT about any other guy in this thread.

One of the most tragic effects of social bigotry is to create a "siege mentality" that gives itself license to retaliate in kind - with hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and animosity. The individuals possessed of that truly irrelevant attribute, whether it be race or gender or sexual orientation, are co-opted into viewing that attribute as relevant - and, in so doing, often become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I say "irrelevant" because, other than the accumulated experience of being treated differently, there is no merit whatsoever in pretending that attribute makes anyone more or less valuable as a member of the human family. Does the treatment have an enormous impact on perception? Absolutely. But the treatment is NOT the attribute.



But this is a complete waste of my time. It's pearls before swine. Your intent is demonstrably not to listen or learn or collaborate ... it's to vent your spleen at anyone you deem the "enemy." Any target willd do - but it's easier to do in a "tolerant" community like DU. After all, theat real world can be a lot more dangerous. It takes actual courage out there - not just keyboard vigilantism.

Good luck with that approach. You'll need it.

:hi:

[Name removed]

275. Deleted message

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

[TahitiNut]

278. That's a despicable, vicious slander. (Why am I not surprised?)

"you really should notpost weird pointless anti women rants here if you don;t want to discuss them"??

I have never, not once, ever done so. It is so far departed from the human being I am that any such allegation is sheer delusion or malicious falsehood.

Your typing skills seem superior to your reading skills.

[bettyellen]

281. so what was your point about how big vaginas can stretch? were you praising women for this?

i don;t fucking think so.


"Silly fellow. Men aren't judged by their weight or clothing.

Any man who thinks so, must have a small penis. After all, that's the basis of all male problems: a penis that's not large enough to satisfy a woman (whose vagina can accommodate an 8# 22" baby). So, if he drives a Porsche or Hummer or Austin Healy or anything flashy or expensive ... it's OBVIOUSLY because he has a small penis (i.e. under 4#). If a man's wife finds a lover, it's OBVIOUSLY because the husband can't satisfy her. He's called a cuckold. (It means "small penis." That's why there's no such word that applies to women.) So, it's not about being fat; it's about a small penis. Any male able to wear pants without a codpiece has a small penis. Isn't it obvious?"

[Name removed]

282. Deleted message

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

[Marrah_G]

277. Stop banging your head against a wall

You are trying to have a conversation with someone who isn't interested in a two-way discussion. They are only interested in screaming their own point of view. It's a shame really. It seems that lately threads have been being hijacked by one or two people trying desperately to drown out any sort of discourse. They do nothing but drive a wedge between people and frankly drive away people that could have been assets.

[bettyellen]

279. driving away those who incorrectly read the OP and turn it into a blanket bigoted statement

yeah, well if you can't deal with being called on your inaccuracies- which the OP also did POLITELY and you STILL IGNORED IT...
LOL, well then maybe you're overestimating that asset stuff.
why don;t you go argue with the OP, because they're nicer than me, and you can't whine about it and feel sorry for yourself.
bwaaaah!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

256. But They're Always The Answers To Questions No One's Asking LOL

The entertainment value of reading the stuff though is priceless. Comedy at its finest! :rofl:

[omega minimo]

257. I noticed that it popped up in the thread

:bounce: :hide: :bounce:

Yep. You had all the questions. Never answered 'em.

[noamnety]

254. Some thoughts

1. Some people are incapable of putting themselves in someone else's shoes - of looking at a perspective other than their own. Result of socialization? Parents typically reward and encourage empathy in their daughters, and stoicism in their sons. Teachers and the media reinforce this message.

2. Having never been the target of prejudice based on their race/gender they honestly can't see how people interact with them differently just based on identity as it exists separate from class. In other words, class is the only thing that's affected them, so they can't conceive it might be different to be in someone else's shoes.

3. The fear of losing their piece of the pie if someone else isn't held down. I saw some of that in this thread - if women and blacks weren't in poverty, more whitemen would be there. For them, there is nothing to be gained by eliminating racism/sexism, only something for them to risk losing.

4. Resistance to admitting fault - not for their characteristics, but for their actions. Sure, my actions might be offensive, but it's the natural and unchangeable state of humanity for me to be offensive because I'm male, so the rest of the world needs to adjust to that. It's their problem if I offend them.

5. Resentment - an unwillingness to admit an obvious systemic problem for other groups, if their personal circumstances aren't what they feel the world owed them. So a guy who had a few tough years, or maybe doesn't make as much as his wife, is unable to bring himself to say out loud "men - as a class - have more privilege," whereas a man who makes twice as much as his wife makes is able to spit out those words - even though the national/worldwide statistics remain the same no matter who's talking.

5. Assumed privileges are incredibly invisible to people that have them, and at the same time are a giant two-by-four smacked on the forehead of those that don't. I'm thinking specifically of the person explaining how they DON'T have any privilege as a straight white male. "My wife makes more money than I do." How does a member of the GLBT Community read that without wincing, when they are still fighting for the basic right to BE married?

[omega minimo]

263. Thank you

So many souls to change.

Logic sure ain't gonna do it.

:yourock:

[bettyellen]

264. thanks Iwfern- for your posts here and the very interesting stats

i can't say i have 1/10th the patience you do. i envy that in you.
i noticed 90% of the time you nailed someone with a damning stat they just ignored it.
ah well, you raised some important issues, and i thank you for it.

but at least hopefully others will see it and learn.

[leftofthedial]

248. it appears to me that anyone who is not gay

or black

or _fill in your favorite "minority" here_

is automatically "guilty" of "latent bigotry"

whatever the fuck that is.

[noamnety]

259. Well, if you read the entire thread

You'd see a number of people quite clearly stating that EVERYONE is affected by the culture in which we are raised, and nobody is immune to that.

If you like, you can interpret that to mean "a subgroup of everyone" is affected by the culture in which they are raised, but personally I think that's a harder position to support - particularly when we have evidence like that video I linked, showing that even from a young age, black children have learned that white people are good, and black people are bad.

[leftofthedial]

273. so it's worse than even I (a cynic) feared

EVERYONE is builty of latent bigotry.

so what exactly is the use of identifying it as a label?

[noamnety]

280. I'd say the purpose is:

1) knowing that the beliefs and perceptions you have are influenced by the way we are socialized, so that
2) we can begin to educate ourselves in the ways in which we were trained to view and treat various people differently, based on race/gender/religion/class/sexual orientation/appearance.
3) we can make more conscious decisions about how we treat others, and about how we socialize our children, so we stop marginalizing people.

It's harder to see in ourselves, but if you look at history, it becomes easier. Odd how people usually see things better up close, but this is something that's prone toward far-sightedness.

If you look back at your parents' generation, you can probably come up with examples of how they behaved in bigoted ways, even though they didn't see it that way. "Separate but equal" is a good example - everyone gets a water fountain to drink from, so how is it racist to say you drink from this one, I drink from that one? And yet, when we look back, it is stunningly clear.

Present day, here I am, a school teacher. It makes sense for me to brush up on this stuff, and it's taught in our teacher certification. Here's why. Most teachers do not believe they are gender-biased. And yet, studies show that they call on male students more often, and allow males to dominate the classroom discussions. So, if you are aware of that, as a teacher, you can make an effort to keep the contributions to the discussion more equal. One of the things I read was that teachers are more likely to compliment girls, but the compliments are more likely to be about appearances. "You look nice today" or "you have the best handwriting" - and the compliments toward the boys are about substance.

I had to look at that in myself, and I recognized that I tended to do that. So since I had to confront that in myself, I have very deliberately NOT commented on the appearance of any girls in my class. So, it sucked a little to come face to face with my own latent sexism, when I consider myself a feminist. But the payoff is that I'm a better teacher. And the funny thing is I actually remember very specifically the first time I gave a purposeful compliment about ability to one of my female students. I don't remember what the compliment was, but I remember her reaction, because she appeared very much affected by it, and a day or two later she brought it up again. It made me overwhelmingly sad to realize what a big deal it was for her.

As a teacher, it's also been helpful to see how race affects things like test scores. If you tell your class that "blacks don't usually do well on this test" - they won't. There are studies on that. It's a self-fulfilling thing. Actually, that goes for any group. Girls know they don't do well on math or science. It might be true, it might be a stereotype, but it's something they've learned. So they under-perform. But if you tell them ahead of time "girls tend to do well on this particular math test" - they will. And white boys, you can do the same with them, playing off stereotypes.

The real world thing that's crazy is that African Americans know they don't do as well on standardized testing. Not because a teacher tells them that, it's just "common knowledge" - maybe because their schools are underfunded, maybe because they are statistically in a lower socio-economic class, we could hypothesize all day on that. BUT. Here we are, they know they do worse. And they have pressure on them as a result that is race-related. The result is that they fuck up.

So what do schools do? They play up the importance of standardized tests. My daughter's elementary school gave MEAP teeshirts to the kids, they had to sing some idiotic song at assemblies about the dumb test. They made it out to be the single most important event in the child's life. Once you do that, the black kids' scores plummet. And here's the tragedy of it - if the kids don't KNOW the test is important, they won't fuck it up. You can test them on the exact same material, tell them it's a practice test, and they will do fine - the race disparity is NOTHING like it is on the test that matters.

It takes confronting privilege, confronting stereotypes in our society, and actually understanding the psychology of WHY it's bad to say "you're a credit to your race" (tying performance to race) to a child, in order to make informed decisions about how to act. Me, I never bought into the whole gendered language thing. Waitress, waitperson, stewardess, flight attendant, chairman, chairperson, who the hell cares? It's the same damn thing, no matter what you call it. It took sitting down and actually looking at the studies for me to get it. When you give a young girl a list of career options to look at, and the language says stewardess, chairman, etc. and then later ask her which careers look appealing to her, she'll say stewardess more often, and chairman less often than if you show her the same list phrased as flight attendant and chairperson. If you say chairman, she doesn't visualize herself in that role. If you say chairperson, she does. Well, you could have knocked me on my ass when I saw that, because it's dumb. It defies logic. And yet, the associations they make are real. Turns out gender neutral language DOES matter. It's not just some PC bullshit the feminists are trying to annoy the rest of the world with. Who knew?

I'm surprised when people specifically do NOT want to hear about patterns of how people are treated so they can do some critical thinking and reflection - it's kind of like NOT wanting to hear any bad news from Iraq.

[Broken_Hero]

283. Locking

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Thanks,
petersond
DU Moderator