General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStraight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is
Last edited Wed May 16, 2012, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Since it seems to be getting lost on some people, I want to note that I am not the author of this piece. I thought this was well stated and an appropriate allegory for the fact that privilege is not the same as success:Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is. This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.
As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.
Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Why should I? Life is hard enough for most of us.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)
arbusto_baboso
(7,162 posts)My acknowledging that as a straight white male I have inherent advantages is the first step toward a fix. You can't solve a problem if you don't admit one exists.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)anknowlege it before this "fix" can proceed?
arbusto_baboso
(7,162 posts)tells me you don't understand the nature of the problem, don't WANT to understand the nature of the problem, and wouldn't even acknowledge it even if you DID understand.
Start by trying to check your bitterness over personal experiences at the door.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)arbusto_baboso
(7,162 posts)You don't WANT an answer, do you?
And btw, your questions to me were pretty damned insulting, so DO NOT play victim with me.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of all.
I just reviewed that post to be sure. You should do the same. Any insult you perceived came from what you read into it, not from the words themselves or any intent of mine.
I am seriously asking, what does individual or universal acceptance of the concept of "white privilege" have to do with potential fixes for problems of racial inequality, or inequality generally?
For example, in the prison system, the education system, economically, etc.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Problems cannot be solved that aren't acknowledged. Harder still when it is the people with the numbers, resources, and power to make changes are the ones that won't accept the situation.
In fact, odds are fairly high that if the problems aren't accepted as an issue by the majority or at least by those with wealth and power then they will actually just grow worse.
I don't get the opposite case, how would problems that are considered to be non-existent even be addresses?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it necessary for me or 'everyone' to acknowlege (white privilege) before this "fix" can proceed?"
The only answer I got was from another poster, who said that once whites acknowleged their privilege, they would then all do the right thing in their little sphere of influence, problem solved.
Your post seems to be made under the assumption that unless people group racial problems under the rubric of "white privilege," they consider racial problems to be non-existent.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Merely the fact that they were asked?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)The answer is, once everyone has acknowleged their white privilege, white people will naturally behave in a non-discriminatory way in their individual lives and all problems will be solved.
See? It's all about individual white people who "discriminate".
Questions of institutional and class power disappeared. Problems of race in america all laid at the feet of ordinary people like you & I who can't admit their privilege. Job done.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Let's say you're interviewing candidates for a job. You decide you like one better. The fix would be taking a moment to ask yourself "do I like this one better because of their race or sex?"
Let's say you're a salesperson working at a store. Do you suspect a customer is shoplifting because of their skin color? Maybe you should look for something else that actually indicates suspicion instead.
And so on.
Fixing it doesn't require tearing down straight white males or artificially elevating anyone else.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)situation, for example if they happen to be personnel manager in a business?
Again, individual response to a problem that is not an individual problem.
For example, do you think Bloomberg (NYC) "stop-&-frisk" policies were put into place because Bloomberg is "racist" in the sense that he hates blacks, doesn't want to work with them, etc?
Not at all. He has black friends, he has blacks on his staff.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We can only control ourselves.
It's an individual response, but enough individuals doing it helps fix the non-individual problem.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)was.
Those people didn't wait around for everyone to acknowlege their "white privilege". They forced the issue and the state stopped supporting outright discriminatory policies.
THE CORELLARY EFFECTS OF WHICH CHANGED PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Today, there isn't law that needs to be changed. What needs to be changed is far more subtle - the subconscious reactions we have to others.
That can only be fixed individually.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"For example, do you think Bloomberg (NYC) "stop-&-frisk" policies were put into place because Bloomberg is "racist" in the sense that he hates blacks, doesn't want to work with them, etc?
Not at all. He has black friends, he has blacks on his staff."
There are many laws that need changing, and many institutional practices that need changing, and few of them are controlled by "the man in the street".
Nor are most of the ills of black people in america due to the failure of most white people to acknowlege their privilege.
For example, the education policy of our black president has resulted in the whitening of the teaching staff in many to most american big cities. Black (and hispanic) teachers are losing their jobs at a higher rate than white teachers, and that's because black teachers are more likely to be teaching in the "failing" schools targeted by education "reform". In NYC, the decline is statistically significant.
Education reform and the attack on public unions under the guise of "budget cuts" both result in a disproportionate loss to black workers (because blacks are more likely than average to be public workers and because blacks are more likely to teach in the areas targeted by education "reform".)
Your little storyline about individual white people accepting their "privilege" and hiring the black guy fails completely to address the very *real* ways that class power structures outcomes to make them appear "natural" while simultaneously rending them impervious to the amelorative efforts of well-intentioned individuals.
It's a fairy story you're selling, and it's one that will NEVER pan out, even if you wait 100 years. It's a story furthermore that plays right into the divide & conquer practiced by the ruling class.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Post is still the same.
If you're referring to the all-caps part, no it didn't. Dumping Jim Crow didn't change attitudes. If it did, then there wouldn't have been that scene in Little Rock. Dumping Jim Crow followed by racists dying from old age changed attitudes.
Without the state reinforcing prejudice, "the kids" weren't steered towards it as much.
(And I will admit my answer was a bit too simple - there are laws that need to be changed for LBGT discrimination)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"the post" i referred to is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=693707
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm not gonna waste my time responding while you're constantly changing them.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The OP is deliberately minimizing class for their metaphor. And the interaction between the multiple privileges is complex and non-uniform.
For example, the "stop and frisk" program is legally race-neutral. The implementation isn't. That implementation is largely formed by the police displaying the privilege discussed by the OP, and is part of the "difficulty level" in the OP's metaphor.
While the education and union policies you refer to happen to fall harder on minorities, they strike me as mostly class-based attacks. They aren't saying "lazy black teachers". They aren't even saying "lazy teachers (whispers) who are black". They're saying "lazy teachers". It's similar with the anti-union attacks.
And because of historical issues, as well as the privilege discussed by the OP, minorities are going to suffer more in class-based attacks. Class issues will definitively require a large-scale group effort to counter.
But the racial/orientation privilege the OP seems to want to discuss is the subconscious reactions we have to others. That doesn't mean other privileges don't exist. Nor does it mean others aren't stronger, either legally or personally.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Not the least because the NYC police are multiracial.
Yet those multiracial police help enact the same policies (and you can see it happening in many modern racial incidents, where, for example, a hispanic male shoots a black kid, a black hospital staffer stands by while a black woman is dragged out of a hospital and thrown into a jail cell where she dies, black police help to subdue black kids on a subway where one is shot, etc.
Is their behavior due to their "white privilege"? Or to the same social/economic pressures operating on whites in the same position?
The stop & frisk policy is not racially neutral in that it's targeted at the lower orders in order to cleanse the city of poor people. And, as you say, the poor are more likely to be black.
Do you think the folks pushing ed reform in places like New Orleans and NYC *don't know* that black teachers are a significant part of the teaching cadre? Do you think they *don't know* that they're firing black teachers and replacing them with white teachers?
Do you think the folks trying to kill public unions and public jobs *don't know* that black people are disproportionately likely to work in the public sector than whites?
Our reactions to others are structured by power, as are our very identities.
Yes, the interaction between factors is complex and non-uniform. Which is why everyone "accepting their white privilege" is no answer to anything. First, it's never going to happen and the world is going to change to such a degree that it will be even less likely to happen.
Second, the entire narrative alienates people who could be allies. And is intended to.
Third, even if it *did* happen, and all white people saw the error of their ways and decided to do what they could in their own area of influence, all those "complex factors" would mitigate against those individual efforts.
It's like a similar story that has been pushed by PTB since the first earth day -- by your individual efforts you can save the planet!! buy x instead of y, reduce, reuse, recycle, blah blah.
Yet here we are, using more shit than ever, building bigger houses, buying more stuff for our kids, ect -- even as we profess to be "environmentally conscious". With more of the world under domination by consumerism and corporations. And with the rich consuming resources on a vast, historically unprecedented scale.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the "fix" will come after white people accept their "white privilege" and start to do right in their sphere of influence is just as ridiculous as saying that the "fix" for economic inequality will come after the ruling class accepts their "class privilege" and resolves to do right in their sphere of influence.
which is *everything,* as their decisions structure the world we live in -- one with eternal wars, universal surveillance of the population, and survival for the majority ("jobs"
limited by design, as a mechanism of control.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Third, even if it *did* happen, and all white people saw the error of their ways and decided to do what they could in their own area of influence, all those "complex factors" would mitigate against those individual efforts.
It's like a similar story that has been pushed by PTB since the first earth day -- by your individual efforts you can save the planet!! buy x instead of y, reduce, reuse, recycle, blah blah.
Yet here we are, using more shit than ever, building bigger houses, buying more stuff for our kids, ect -- even as we profess to be "environmentally conscious". With more of the world under domination by consumerism and corporations. And with the rich consuming resources on a vast, historically unprecedented scale.
This is complete bullshit. If all white people saw the error of their ways, the world would change radically in one day. This won't happen, of course, but your attempted minimization of the importance of white privilege won't stand the slightest scrutiny.
The environmental movement has had a huge impact on America. Has it solved everything? No. But it has changed everything to the better, from weekly recycling bins at the curb, to other recycling practices in many businesses that reduces pollution and environmental impacts. This is now systemic ecological practice.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)literally unable to recognize black people as different from them. What would radically change tomorrow?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The problem isn't about NOT seeing color, it is about seeing color and UNDERSTANDING color, which few white people do, in my experience. Being color-blind is to be and remain ignorant, that's all.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)able to discriminate on the basis of color. It was obviously a hypothetical.
You didn't tell me, even though you previously insisted so much would change.
Instead, you attacked me because you didn't like the way I phrased the hypothetical.
Do you really think such tactics help to bring about the world you supposedly desire? Or are you just invested in feeling superior to others?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)There is nothing I can do about that.
Your hypothetical bears no relationship to anything I previously stated. This is the lack of understanding to which I refer.
To play your game, as to what would change if white people became immediately colorblind, enormous opportunities would open up for black people in all types of major and minor ways. However, the legacy of almost 400 years of racism that strongly limited opportunity and mobility long after the end of slavery will not change things overnight.
It won't change things for quite awhile, because the black underclass created by that 400 years, and segregated by federally-supported housing codes into ghettos, will continue to be ignored, and the cycle of poverty will be repeated over and over again, except for the small number that learn a path out.
What white privilege discussions are about are education for white people, to let them understand how they are complicit in maintaining institutional racism by denying blacks the same considerations for opportunity, success, and failure, that they enjoy themselves. This, in turn, would hopefully create a more empathic white population that would make a great effort to embrace their fellow citizens, and create public policy that would do more to help all poor people get the supports they need to get a quality education and opportunities for good-paying jobs. That might change things, and make actual progress.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)you made an assertion -- lots would change on day one if whites suddenly saw the error of their ways.
I specified if whites "couldn't perceive blackness" for a reason, which was that if that were the case, they couldn't discrimate on the basis of blackness either negatively *or* positively. i wanted to know what would change on day 1 in that case.
you repeat what you already said: things would change, enormous opportunities would open up. again, i ask -- what?
i understand the concept of white privilege. i also understand how theodore allen's original formulation has been eviscerated of its historical and class analysis and been turned into the more simplistic and much less politically useful "how whites are complicit in maintaining institutional racism by denying blacks the same considerations for opportunity, success, and failure, that they enjoy themselves."
and that's par for the course in mainstream discourse in the USA, because there's a concerted effort *to* eviscerate all but the crudest of class analyses from public consciousness.
Which disappears the ruling class altogether and presents us with the fairy story that if only you and you and you and you would just accept/understand/repent of your white privilege, the millenium would be upon us.
Well, it won't. But it is a useful mechanism to continue racial divisions by new and even more devious means. For the rulers, I mean.
and, as can be seen in this thread, sends people chasing after needles on the heads of pins like "who has it worse, a straight white neuroatypical dirt-poor hunchbacked male in mississippi or a gay black personable dirt poor sexy dirt-poor welfare mom in alabama"?
PS: Whatever you may think, I'm not playing a game. I'm attempting to participate in a discussion about something I think is pretty important. But my position is not inside the framework of the current "dominant narrative." Ergo, people operating inside that narrative, whether at the left pole or the right pole, are going to be hostile toward it on the basis of their *assumptions* about what I mean.
Well, such is life.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Those white participants in the Civil Rights Movement ABSOLUTELY recognized their white priviledge! That's why they were out there marching.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Particularly because the "white privilege" analysis was a post 1963 development.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you suggesting that a recognition that one is not subject to the oppression of jim crow is not a recognition of white priviledge, by whatever name it has come to be called? Really?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)as recognizing "white privilege," yes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when that person making the recognition is white!
How else can the: "I am not treated in that manner; I am white. They are treated in that manner; they are Black" dynamic be explained?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Was the "problem" of the 60s defined as whites having privilege, or as blacks being barred (by law in many cases) from exercising ordinary civil rights?
You're saying that the opposite pole of discrimination and exclusion is privilege. But it's not.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)If only YOUR group has that right, and other groups are denied this right, it is a privilege for your group.
and nobody said that the opposite pole of discrimination and exclusion is privilege. This is you putting words into other people's mouths, of course.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)poles, exclusion and privilege, when you set up this opposition of white privilege v. black discrimination and exclusion.
To my mind, where a minority are barred from doing something most people do as a matter of course, that's a punishment, not a denied privilege.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)white priviledge ... white priviledge is NOT about what happens to me, as a Black man; it is about what doesn't happen to you, as a white person (assuming you are white).
So the fundamental step for understanding this OP, and by extension - white priviledge, is accepting that no significant barrier in your life can be traced to your being a white male.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I'm pretty certain you are NOT a Black Female.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 03:09 AM - Edit history (2)
But let's return to your claim that white privilege is about what *doesn't* happen to me as a white person. By which I assume you mean stuff like this, from another post by you:
Have you EVER been {received a ticket, rather than a repair order by the police/had your job or loan application scrutinized/been denied housing/been required to pay higher insurance premiums/had your presence, credentials or expertise questioned/...} BECAUSE you are Black?
It seems to me that all you're saying is that my privilege consists of not being discriminated against by white people. If you're saying something different, please explain.
But if that's what you're saying, I don't understand how formulating that in terms of white *privilege* has more explanatory power than formulating it in terms of white *discrimination*.
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts) Logical
(22,457 posts)
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Life isn't a video game with settings we can choose to manipulate to our benefit. A better analogy would be to poker, where we are all dealt hands of varying potential, and then attempt to use them to best advantage. Even if all SWM's are dealt a one-eyed Jack, they still might end up with no better than a pair of sevens. 
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)No two people start from the same spot in life.
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)chickypea
(30 posts)there is plenty of reason for empathy for others less fortunate- women and people of color don't have it as easy. There is really little reason why skin color and penises should bestow honor or wealth upon anyone.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The straight white male parts are pretty much negated if you're Asperger's or high-functioning autistic in a world where social skills are valued above everything else.
I graduated from my college summa cum laude and from law school as a classmate of the FLOTUS - no I didn't know her, but I knew who she was as she was in my first year section. I've spent most of the last 24 years working for subsistence wages and have never been able to stick at a real job. Why? Because I'm Asperger's, with very limited social skills and no ability to read people. A therapist told me that I present just enough "off" to subconsciously raise people's red flags.
I can do the work - once at the highest levels though my skills have atrophied a bit over the years - but I am a dreadful interview and something of a silent, odd duck to work with. I just want to be left alone to do my job. Which means that I am forever destined to dead-end subsistence level jobs for life while my classmates probably average $400-750,000/year in private practice.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)do agree.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and then I have zero disagreements with you. 
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that."
As a straight white woman who is ugly, I face huge difficulty level. It gets worse, since ugly women don't generally get decent marriage options, which means they may stay single and therefore are automatically suspected to be lesbian. Last one hired, first one dumped, treated like shit by *everybody* in between.
So all other things being equal, perceived lesbian ugly white woman has much higher difficulty level than, say, straight and beautiful black woman (who despite bigotry, will be fantasized about and considered suitable for office decor/eye candy).
"If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine."
And then there's Mittens...
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Please don't be so hard on yourself.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Anything that interferes sociability will marginalize a person, and potentially lead to disabling isolation.
bhikkhu
(10,714 posts)I can say from experience, its always been easy to get past just about any difficulty - bankruptcy, traffic infractions, poor choices and bad decisions, etc. There seems to be a kind of "reset" available where you admit fault, make simple amends, and step right back onto the privileged path that is expected of you according to appearance and "class".
Along the way, as everything that is difficult for others seems to be easy to oneself, you get the idea that it is due to some extra quality of character, or some innate goodness or value, and you wonder what it is that prevents other people from doing or having the same - then you read some RW crap about the poor and lazy minorities, and it all begins to makes sense...
...which is the easy way to go. Waking up and realizing that you aren't particularly good, and that others were more deserving of the opportunities offered to you - that's a bit harder, but leads to a more deliberate care and an "examined life" (to be brief).
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)always lived like a poor student even when I made a middle-class income, saving half or more of my income and using credit only to buy a house, never alcoholic or drug-addicted, and put herself through college with honors and without debt, yet was thrown off-track by family illness and divorce, I haven't found it easy to pick up and resume my "privileged" life course.
Which was never that privileged to begin with, just the average life of a person from my class background coming to age in the era I did, when the children/daughters of the blue-collar work-force were entering college and the white-collar world in historically large numbers *due to nation-wide social and economic changes,* not personal merit).
Nor have I ever felt that if people didn't "make it," it was because they were lazy. Because I always recognized that the economy was structured hierarchically by design, to ensure that some didn't make it -- as the existence of an indigent fraction and a "barely scraping by" fraction are essential features of capitalism to the same degree that the existence of a "fabulously wealthy and powerful" and "well-paid operatives of the powerful and wealthy" are.
bhikkhu
(10,714 posts)...for the most part, people like me didn't have to study as hard to get good grades, didn't have to work as hard to keep a job, didn't have to try as hard to get a job, always assumed we would marry a pretty girl and raise a fine family in a big house, and that everything would get better every year, and that this was all right and good and deserved. One doesn't have to personally enjoy privilege, but absorbing the viewpoints and expectations of society we observe probably works about the same.
When you don't have to try very hard, you just assume that its the same for everyone, and then you judge the rest of the world based upon your position in it. There are many things to think about that, but I think it explains in part ethnocentric notions of superiority - which are pretty firmly fixed in the US - as well as many republican viewpoints.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)to be entitled to. my life is way to hectic and difficult for being on the lowest setting.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I'm really tired of hearing about how easy I have it.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think you're confusing "how easy I have it" with "how difficult others have it".
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)chickypea
(30 posts)Now imagine what your life would be if you weren't given privilege because of your gender and race!
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)tell me exactly what privileges I've received in my life. Keep in mind of course, that you know nothing about me or what I may or may not have overcome in my life. Then you can explain to me how 'white privilege' is anything more than stereotyping of the worst sort.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The answer lies in your honest answer to this question:
"Have you EVER been {received a ticket, rather than a repair order by the police/had your job or loan application scrutinized/been denied housing/been required to pay higher insurance premiums/had your presence, credentials or expertise questioned/...} BECAUSE you are Black?
Keep in mind, your answer has nothing to do with what you have, or have not, overcome in your life.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.
Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)is b/c the setup is set against them. ok got it. still sounds like a massive generalized load to me. seems that people born into priviledge are on the lowest setting. everyone else is not
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They can make poor choices too. And they can make good choices.
Also, the author mentions that being born to wealthy parents makes it even easier.
It's not about you having it "better" or not. It's not about you feeling guilty or not. There is no requirement that you suffer so that someone else can do better.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)where does the 'white privilege' part come in?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Sure, Oprah's done great for herself.
A lot of straight white dudes have done much better, with less effort, in the same field.
Now, you don't have to do anything about that - Oprah can take care of herself.
All that's requested of you is when you do decide to do something, take a moment to think if you're making a decision based on someone else's gender/race/etc. You can't make it fair for everyone. You can only make it fair in your interactions with others.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Where does 'white privilege' play into the choices that are available to me, and how does it affect the outcome of my decisions?
Are you saying that all of the opportunities that have come my way have done so solely because I'm a SWM? That seems unlikely since there were people of all ethnicities participating in the same educational system and social activities. Same way when I was in the military, all sorts of folks there too. So it can't be that I was particularly privileged as far as opportunities.
Now, as regards the outcomes of my choices, where is the privilege there? During those times when I've chosen poorly I've suffered the consequences just as anyone else. When I've chosen not to work I've had no money. When I broke the law I paid the fines.
Privilege that can be negated so easily isn't much privilege at all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)George Zimmerman, or someone similar, isn't going to shoot you if you walk through his neighborhood at night. That opens up a range of options that someone else will not have.
No. I'm saying some opportunities came your way because you were. And some didn't. But more did than didn't.
Well, I can't know your choices, so we'll go with another extreme example: Oprah.
She's done quite well, yes? Many straight white guys have done better, with less effort. Such as Rupert Murdoch.
None of this is to say you have had it easy. Nor is it to say you have to somehow make up for it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Would you mind naming a few? 
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)as long as they please, with little likelihood of serious penalty.
Compare the life trajectories of upper-class heroin addicts RFK Jr, William S. Burroughs and John Paul Getty III to those of ordinary addicts, or of alcoholic Richard Mellon Scaife, son of another super-rich alcoholic, to your run-of-the-mill boozer. Their "bad choices" were redeemable, not because they "made amends," but because their economic and social survival didn't depend on the willingness of other people to accept their amends and employ them.
Getty was physically destroyed by his "bad choices" at 25, but he had round the clock care for 30 years and his son went to the same private school as the British royal family.
Getty's father and stepmother also made "bad choices" (drug problems, stepmother died of a heroin OD); nevertheless, they remained fabulously wealthy. Money never sleeps. While Getty Sr was in treatment for his drug addiction, Margaret Thatcher stopped by to thank him for his big donation to the National Gallery.
John Paul and his chauffeur leave the memorial mass held for his father Sir John Paul Getty in London.
On a related note, discussions of "straight privilege" typically disappear the long and fairly well-known history of wealthy gay people who were able to live as gay people without threat of the penalties that lower-class gays were subject to, because of the privilege their money gave them and the habit of their class peers to turn a blind eye.
Such as the Standard Oil heir Marion "Joe" Carstairs who lived as an obviously homosexual person well before the gay rights movement.
Carstairs lived a colorful life. She usually dressed as a man, had tattooed arms, and loved machines, adventure and speed...Between 1925 and 1930, Carstairs spent considerable time in powerboats, becoming a very successful racer, although the Harmsworth Trophy she longed for always eluded her. She did take the Duke of York's trophy and establish herself as the fastest woman on water...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Carstairs
For example:
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We need single white males and lesbian black females and disabled gay black males to all join forces and fight the Plutocrats that keep egging everyone to war against each other.
ananda
(28,856 posts)nt
KG
(28,751 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)to all the straight white males who are not "successful"?
"Holy crap man, you had all the cards in your favor, you had the lowest difficulty setting and you still lost. What a pathetic loser you are. (and by the way, don't forget to vote for us, because we care about you, you racist loser)"
Not only that, but because you have such a low difficulty setting, we are not gonna create any programs to help you. If you are a white male - YOYO (You're On Your Own)
The other part is that people seem to be claiming it is a low difficulty setting without having walked a mile in your shoes.
"all other things being equal" seems like a cop out too. It says to somebody in the 10th percentile. "Just ignore the 90% of the population which is economically better off than you are, because you are a white male, you are better off than those in the 10-15th percentile and thus you have 'privilege'." Apparently privilege over 5% trumps privation over 85% (that white skin, it's some powerful stuff).
I still say that is one fucked up definition of privilege, when I am privileged in the 10th percentile and Ellen Degeneres, Melissa Ethridge, Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, etc.,etc., etc. are members of oppressed "groups". Yep, the guy making $20 million a year for playing golf is oppressed and the guy making $12,000 a year cleaning toilets is privileged.
Oh, I forgot, that last guy, he's just a complete screw up because with all of his privileges (and the straight A's that were apparently just given to him based on the color of his skin and his Y chromosome, and his university degrees (okay I did get one of those without going to very many classes)) he still ended up cleaning toilets.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)involved in a "successful" life.
You are also, again - I have pointed this out in the past - taking a handful of outliers (wealthy non-SWMs) as well as your own personal experiences and trying to refute what is an institutional, statistical reality. That is nonsense.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)because if I talk about Oprah, or Tiger, everybody knows who I am talking about. If I talk about Chester, then nobody knows who I am talking about.
I could take some time to explain who Chester is, but it is much quicker and easier to just point to Tiger.
Here's who Chester is. He's an actual black male, who apparently was my nemesis. Not on purpose (I think) but there was a time when the last three jobs I applied for, were instead given to Chester. I applied for the full time janitor job at the place where I worked part time. Okay, first that was given to another black man, Layton. After about five weeks he was fired for not showing up every Friday. Then it was given to Chester. Then I applied for a job as dogcatcher. Chester also applied for it, and got that job. Then I applied for a janitor job at the Methodist church, and Chester got that job.
Strangely enough, I do not consider "not getting a job" to be some sort of privilege, but again, apparently I am part of a privileged "group" and Chester and Tiger and Oprah are part of an oppressed "group".
My point is very, very simple. In spite of the averages, the people in the first group do not all enjoy privileges any more than the people in the second group all experience oppression. If a statistical "reality" as you call it, does not translate to the personal, then it is not much of a reality, is it?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)However the "complex forces" to which I refer includes and exceeds matters of class.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)You said this much better than I could.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)As the author says, it's only a better starting point. There's a host of other things that control where you end up in the "game".
There is no requirement that you do anything about it, or feel any guilt, or are expected to have as much money as Romney.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Those who reject the concept of White Male Privilege do not, apparently, understand this.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I'm serious here malthaussen. Explain to me the relation between 'Equality of Opportunity is not Equality of Condition
' and the concept of 'white privilege'. I readily admit that I don't understand.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)It is however, should you be interested, one of the founding principles upon which is predicated much of the entire fields of ethnic and gender studies.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Those who are denying White Male Privilege seem to mostly do so on the grounds that "I didn't get mine." The argument, if I may dignify it by that word, is that since they are not, presently, in a privileged condition, then they must not have had a superior opportunity. Ergo, opportunity is not unequal, or if it is, they are the one suffering the detriment. I think it is fairly easy to see why this is a fallacious argument.
Mind you, the fact that this is a fallacious argument does not prove that White Male Privilege exists. Now, the arguments in support of the existence of White Male Privilege are variations on the same theme: the White Males statistically are in condition superior to their competition, ergo the playing field must not be level. This assumes, firstly, that all competing classes have the same ambitions, desires, and innate abilities: to argue otherwise is to expose oneself as a bigot right from the start. Granting this assumption, the statistical anomaly that other competing classes do not, taken as groups, rise to the level of condition of the competition is taken as evidence that the fix is in.
Essentially, it comes down to the bell-curve: regardless of advantage, some people are going to fall through the cracks. It is when bell-curves are superimposed, and we discover that proportionately more non-white male samples fall through the cracks than do white males, that we begin to think something is up. But the bell-curve tells us nothing about the individual sample; anecdote, however, is not evidence. This is a case where an individual argument -- "I didn't get mine" -- is clearly fallacious, whereas the group argument -- "We aren't getting ours" -- is taken to be valid (at least, by those who agree with it).
On review, I doubt much if this clears up the matter at all -- especially if one happens to be the White Male whose only privilege is apparently being trampled by others, not all of whom by any means are white males. I happen to think, personally, that the White Male Privilege meme is incomplete: the advantage that does exist has to do with more factors than just race and gender, but certainly White Males are disproportionally represented in the ranks of those who are in superior condition to the average.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)It's nice when someone takes the time to post a well-thought out and courteous reply. We could use a lot more of that around here.
Having said that though (and you knew this was coming), I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the situation with an open mind that there is NO equality of opportunity between SWMs of different socio-economic classes. How then, can there exist this mysterious and monolithic 'white privilege'? If 'white privilege' doesn't guarantee that SWMs are in superior positions to ALL non-SWMs then what does it actually do? What advantage does it really provide?
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)I certainly wouldn't. But it could be easily misrepresented that way. I suppose there are those who would claim that the meanest SWM is privileged over the most advantaged non-SWM, but I certainly can't think of a defense for such an extreme position.
I think, as others have pointed out, that starting socioeconomic class must also be factored in. However, if we group classes according to that standard, and then compare progress, if we still discover that the Straight White Males have an advantage, it lends credence to the idea that SWM have an across-the-board advantage. It still won't get the redneck into Harvard, but it might give him an edge if he applies to Ole Miss.
Possibly we could think of socioeconomic status as a "weight class" in boxing. The most talented and powerful flyweight is not likely to win in a fight against a mediocre heavyweight. But -- switching the metaphor back to privilege -- some flyweights might have an advantage against other flyweights, and so when we speak of the privilege of SWM, that is what we're talking about.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)At least it seems so to me. As one travels down the class ladder you find that lower-class non-SWMs receive MORE advantages than similarly placed SWMs. There are many programs and scholarships explicitly targeted to non-SWMs and none (that I'm aware of) that explicitly target SWMs.
So I think the discussion needs to shift to class rather than orientation, race and gender. But then I'm just tired of being everyone else's Satan.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Much of presumptive SWM privilege, however, is not institutional. Those who favor such programs will argue that they are an inadequate compensation for the prejudice which is the underlying presumption for SWM privilege. Given that most learning is done by individuals from their own life experiences, it is unlikely that one who has suffered discrimination based on being a SWM is going to embrace the concept that he is actually privileged. This is where all of those bell-curves I talked about earlier run up against Real Life -- which is usually much messier than statistics.
Shifting the discussion exclusively to one of class, however, will ignore the fact that the misery is not distributed proportionately, and thus it is unlikely that one who suffers from such disproportionate allocation is going to advocate ignoring his stake in the game.
I don't much mind being everyone else's Satan. It has nothing to do with me. Straight, white, male -- I fully understand why Orthodox Jews open the day with a prayer thanking god they were not born female.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)That's what makes it so insidious, right? The fact that it's this mysterious, invisible force that permeates society and colors all our interactions with each other without us even realizing it? If you're willing to concede that society may in fact favor non-SWMs over SWMs in certain cases, especially as class becomes involved, then haven't you destroyed the foundation on which the concept of 'white privilege' is built?
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Sorry, I'm under a time gun, here. We can continue this later, if it pleases you.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Thank you very much for the discussion malthaussen, it was quite enjoyable. I'll try to check in later as well. Take care!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm not going to be gunned down by George Zimmerman - instead of him assuming I'm a criminal, he's gonna assume I'm a guest.
Admittedly, that's a rather extreme example.
Class definitely enters in when talking about socioeconomic outcome - The “Gay Minority Female” born to wealthy parents is going to end up better off than a straight white male born to dirt-poor parents. But that's just one layer. There's multiple layers involved and the interactions between those layers is complex and not uniform.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)There's only you and me, and "we" just disagree.
Those who assert white privilege don't seem to understand that.
"We are not getting ours" seems ridiculous when the "we" includes 1.7 million black households with more than $100,000 in assets (from the 2002 census of wealth), and because it then also translates into "you (others) are getting too much" when the "others" includes 9.2 million white non-hispanic households with less than $5,000 in assets.
The whole "equality of opportunity" meme sounds to me like just another way of saying "we don't care about poor people." It's looking at the 29 million households with less than $5,000 in assets and saying, the problem is not that lots of people are getting trampled and discarded by society. No, the problem is that it is unfair that only 20.3% of white people are being trampled while a whopping 48.4% of black people are being trampled.
But we don't want to try to stop ALL people from being trampled. We just want to equalize it. Of course, once things are equal (and fair) that will mean another 4.8 million white households will be getting trampled, but what the hey, that is the way the ball bounces.
BTW, did you hear the one about how poor white people vote against their self interest by not voting for liberals?
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)The fact that a large underclass is being trampled by our social and economic system is not the same question as whether or not that trampling is distributed equally. If you are suggesting that the former is a more important topic than the latter, you won't get an argument from me. If you are further suggesting that the former problem more admits of solution than the latter, I'd love to see your argument.
I do like your final point. It certainly does refute those who cry alligator tears about the poor, dumb rednecks.
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)At least I think so. I thought he was making the point that poor whites voting against what you think their interests should be may have a totally different view, which may be shaped by their perception that your political party views them as privileged when they clearly are not.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)For one thing, we here on this liberal site spend more time talking about white privilege than we do about poverty. Further, the problem (IMO) with the idea of white privilege is that the accusatory finger gets pointed at poor white people. They are told, usually by much richer white people "you have white privilege" and they respond, quite logically with some cuss words, or a hand to the crotch saying "I got your white privilege right here". Then, they are further insulted by the "enlightened ones" who marvel at their lack of understanding of such basic facts.
"They just don't understand."
"And never will."
Translation: not only do they have white privilege, but they are idiots (or perhaps just fools and ignoramuses).
"They" of course, including me.
Insult to injury, is how I see it. First you get trampled, and then some rich white guy accuses you of white privilege from his ivory tower/upper middle class white collar perch. The trampled simply do not have privileges, and it is insulting to tell them they do.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)malthaussen
(17,183 posts)... in the middle of this discussion. Frankly, I think you have a legitimate gripe, whether or not particularly applicable to DU, I am not competent to judge. But I think you go overboard is saying "the trampled simply do not have privileges." That the privileges of the trampled, taken as a whole, do not compete with the privileges of the tramplers, does not exclude the possibility that one set of victims may be in an advantageous set of circumstances when compared to another, which indeed they are by your own statistics.
As for the snotty, ivory-tower types who sneer at you for being a dumbass, they are worthy only of being ignored. By allowing them to insult you, you validate their insult.
-- Mal
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)rather than being an immediate back and forth. People can then take some time to think about things and refine their arguments.
Indeed, I sorta felt like I had slipped into a position of "white privilege exists, but it is insulting to say so".
But my statistics did not show that one set of victims had an advantageous set of circumstances. They just showed that a lower percentage of white people were being trampled.
I find this notion of white privilege to be wrong because it divides the country into
oppressed groups (which includes lots of people who are not particularly oppressed, like Oprah and Tiger)
and
privileged groups (which includes lots of people who are not particularly privileged (like me))
whereas I would divide these groups only by class. Thus, all those in the top 20% are privileged (with some variations for cost of living and health, etc (a rich person with terminal cancer is not better off than a poor person in good health)
and those in the bottom 20% are oppressed (if only by circumstances)
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I'm probably poorer than you and white privilege is not something that is difficult for me to understand.
I could post articles like this all day but you have a refusal to accept anything we say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=1&em
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)if I wasn't a white guy with a master's degree working as a part-time janitor for 8 of the last ten years.
It's not difficult for me to "understand". I understand it just fine. I just think it is a crock of shite.
But I can do that because I am king of the world!!
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I can go on.
http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
What is a "crock of shite" is your refusal to accept realities like why are blacks more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for drug use while their rates of use are the same as whites?
gaspee
(3,231 posts)Because they don't want to. All they can do is take it as an indictment against themselves personally and not as a reflection on society as a whole.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Men die younger, are more likely to be unemployed, are more likely to be the victims of violent crime, suffer harsher treatment by the justice system, receive less government assistance, and are 50% less likely to go to college and are paid less upon graduation, than their sisters.
These aren't anecdotes. This is the lay of the land, and it disproves the premise.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Would straight, curvy blonde be an easier setting? Just wonderin...
gaspee
(3,231 posts)If you want no respect and to be treated like shit by the very people who want to fuck you. But since you're raised in a society where only your looks matter if you're a curvy blonde, you should be fine as long as you accept the role assigned to you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in Mississippi, than for the rich son of two prosperous black attorneys living on the Upper East Side in Manhattan?
It's really more a class issue than a color/sexual orientation issue.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts) Romulox
(25,960 posts)
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)
Life is easier for a straight white male from a desperately poor family, living in a trailer park in Mississippi, than for a straight black male from a desperately poor family, living in a trailer park in Mississippi.
you can't compare apples and zebras.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Is it your thought that a straight black male from a desperately poor family, living in a trailer park, has opportunity indistinguishable from the straight white male in the same condition?
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)There are many programs and scholarships designed explicitly to help SBMs from lower socio-economic classes with education and job training and placement. Not so much for SWMs.
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)... supposing the SWM and SBM were content to remain in their trailer park, and seek employment and status within their community, where would the advantage lie then?
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)If two individuals decide not to seek to improve their lives how can you determine which one is 'privileged'? For example, if a SBM decides not to attempt college even though he is offered help to do so then does that make him less 'privileged' than a SWM who isn't offered similar help?
malthaussen
(17,183 posts)Prejudice on a local level is possibly where privilege exerts itself most insidiously. You can tell who is less privileged in that environment by looking at who gets hired, who gets to rent/buy a house, all sorts of things. And let's not overestimate the cornucopia of special programs offered to non-SWMs, compared to SWMs. Take a black kid and a white kid who have just gotten out of high school and are looking to work: supposing the white business owner has filled any racial quotas he might be obliged to fill, do you think he is as likely to hire the black kid as the white kid? Obviously, individuals vary, which is why anecdote makes for bad evidence, but if we check the statistics and see that the white kid is hired disproportionately often, is it unreasonable to conclude that there is some sort of privilege in operation?
-- Mal
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)but I wanted to get one thought out. In your hypothetical, wouldn't the mere existence of quotas for non-SWMs be a clear example of their 'privilege' over SWMs?
I'll check back later for your thoughts. Thanks for a most interesting discussion.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Being able to rent a place to live, ditto.
Why do you want to call the ability to do those things more easily (on average) an example of "privilege", which implies that the norm is to be jobless and homeless? (Not that it's 'easy' for anyone, as the number of hoops one is required to jump through for both housing and employment has increased several magnitudes over the last 40 years).
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Life is easier for you then for a black male, a woman, ect who's life is almost identical to yours in every other way. They have to deal with all the same crap as you do AND they have to deal with racism and prejudice.
Life is easier for 2 prosperous white attorneys in Manhattan then it is for two prosperous black attorneys in Manhattan.
Perhaps someday this won't be true. But the reality is that right now it is.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)'Cause I'm pretty sure this thread refutes it.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)then I am pretty sure there is absolutely no reason to continue this conversation.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Since you've already determined how difficult my life has or has not been contrasted with the difficulty or ease of the life of every non-SWM that exists this probably isn't going to go anywhere productive.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)We are talking in circles.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Thank you for the conversation though.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Or a government aid program that is directed exclusively to men.
Or a form of compulsory national service that is directed exclusively to women.
Much of our very visible, tangible, and backed by the force of law social infrastructure is designed to mitigate for invisible, allegorical and intangible privilege that the 60% women student body heard about in college.
bullsnarfle
(254 posts)I seem to recall a passage about the success one achieves being not so much how high you climb but the obstacles one must overcome to get there.
I am sure that your straight white male never had to be afraid of being arrested, or even shot, for “walking/driving while black”…..or had his job app shit-canned by a bigoted HR type because his name was “Jamal” instead of “Bob”.
And do you know that if you live in, say, Jacksonville, FL, you can LEGALLY be evicted from your apartment, or fired from your job, or refused service at a restaurant, just for being gay? Truth.
I could go on (and on, and on) but I think the point has been made.
gaspee
(3,231 posts)To even post stuff like this because all you get is the SWM whining about how hard their lives have been. Don't want to get it, have no empathy, tunnel visioned to their own experience and maybe not smart enough to get the actual point.
Poor dears.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Couldn't possibly be a lack of empathy and recognition that life is difficult for all of us on the part of non-SWMs, that's for sure.
On Edit: and really, "poor dears"? No condescention there, eh?
gaspee
(3,231 posts)my heart breaks for you.
Here's a little hint to help with your comprehension.
Not everything is about you, personally.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
will simply never comprehend the horror of being Halle Berry.
randome
(34,845 posts)Now I have to go clean my eyes!
Lucky Luciano
(11,252 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Hence logical knots like the following:
Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
Um, what? Others may have more social resources than you, but you still have it best? It doesn't compute.
Stuckinthebush
(10,843 posts)As a straight, white, middle class male I think I'm at one of the lowest difficulty levels. The SWUC (upper class) male has the lowest difficulty level.
Now, does a SWLC male have a lower difficulty level than a GBUC male? Maybe. It depends on their living/working location I'm sure. How about a SBUC male? I'd say definitely the SBUC male has a little bit lower difficulty level than the SWLC male.
Money, money, money.
Then, context does play a large role in this metaphore, doesn't it? A SWLC male in rural Mississippi or rural Alabama probably has a lower difficulty level in context than a SBUC male.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And class only helps so much - If Tiger Woods "dressed down" and went to my local Wal-Mart, the employees there would definitely think he's up to something.
But we really can't individually change anything about class. We can try to change our subconscious reactions to other people.
We'll need to work on the class thing as a group.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)My assertion is that class privileges clearly and overwhelmingly trump all others.
In your Tiger woods example, for instance, it wouldn't be enough for Tiger to "dress down". He'd also have to borrow a non-luxury automobile, and perhaps scuff up his manicured fingernails.
Even then, he couldn't necessarily "pass" for working class. Have you heard how he speaks? Nobody in the Carhartt shop talks like that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)My local Wal-Mart is quite the cesspool.
As for the thrust of your post, there's no reason we can't multi-task. Especially since the issue highlighted in the OP doesn't really require any work to fix - class issues will require tons of work.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Tiger can't just take those off.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because they're massive racists.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)You don't want class discussed, I understand. But your example is a poor way of downplaying class. Class can't just be ignored for your convenience!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You'd find that I was giving a specific example. "They" refers to the people in that example.
Nor is class the source of all prejudice. Talking about others is actually a good thing.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)That game seems to be racist as hell.
msongs
(67,381 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,012 posts)be an even more "hard core" setting.
thanks for the thread
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)If the point is to get straight white males who deny privilege to accept it, well then, it's a poor way to go about it.
First, what is the point of focusing on three types of privilege only? Namely, sexual orientation, race, and gender. If the topic is privilege, which encompasses far, far more than just those three groups, why the focus of privilege on just these three?
These articles always go about saying "everything else being equal" as well, but what's the point? Might as well address privilege for what it really is, a very complicated issue with all sorts of factors, some which are much more impactful than sexual orientation, race, or gender, but aren't even discussed for some reason?
Then, specifically going after the "straight white male", over and over again, will of course put people on the defensive. I understand the temptation to generalize grandly about such topics, but it's counterproductive and not a great way to start discussion.
I find that the vast majority of people, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, or gender, do not recognize their own privileges. I think people quickly notice the privilege of others, and the relative disadvantages they have, but no one wants to recognize their own privileges, at least not easily. So to just focus on the "straight white male" seems rather silly, when everyone needs to recognize privilege, and it seems to miss the point. Indeed, I think the weird concentration on just the "straight white male" makes any other combination feel like they don't need to examine their privilege, since they are not the "most" privileged.
I think it is this strange sort of need to pick a combination of only three factors and come to some sort of definite conclusion of "who has it easiest" which seems to miss the whole point of understanding privilege, which is simply to have empathy and understand that we don't live in a perfect meritocracy, and hopefully work towards more of a meritocracy that provides equal opportunities to all. It seems to scapegoat one group of people as the ultimate purveyors and benefactors of privilege, when in reality, many in that same group lose out on a lot due to privilege, just maybe not privilge derived from just those three factors. Why alienate people that suffer from the same system?
I think discussing and understanding privilege is great and needed, but the needling of just "straight white males" makes no sense and isn't a good strategy to get people (much less straight white males) to examine their own privileges, much less accept that we don't live in a perfect meritocracy. The whole "American exceptionalism" of the right is based on such a myth, but even people on the right complain about their lack of privilege and disadvantages, they just have a hard time recognizing the system of privilege is the reason why. Privilege is about a lot more than race, sexual orientation, and gender, much less saying "who has it easiest" in grandly generalized, subjective pronouncements.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Forty-plus years since the civil rights movement and while there are lots more minority faces in visible positions of privilege (a good thing, but one which mainly benefited those from the old "talented tenth," who were already relatively privileged) and somewhat more integration in certain areas, the fact is that blacks as a whole are still at the bottom of the economic totem pole, noticeably. Not to mention they are increasingly incarcerated and surveilled, that schooling is just as segregated as it was during the civil rights era, and housing nearly so (except, oddly enough, at the very bottom and the top).
Not to mention that "whites" are, on average, outstripped economically by a number of minority groups.
Not to mention that both white & black men's income (like men's income generally) has been pretty much flat for the same 40-odd years.
The old ruling class strategy divided people by sharp lines of race. In the new "multicultural, global, democratic" society it is much more important to have minority faces in positions of privilege in order to better rule over the larger mass of powerless peons of all races.
But racial division must be kept alive in order that the peons should remain focused on that, attacking each other, to the exclusion of alternative analyses of their condition.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Well said.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)orders is the ruling classes' worst nightmare.
which is why they spend an inordinate amount of time surveilling the population and issuing divisive propaganda while disappearing narratives that help unite people or explain the world in a way that rebuts the propaganda.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)Class conflict means $$$. The PTB only cares about money and power.
That's why a scumbag like billionnaire Randian Repuke Paul Singer can blithely support gay marriage.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"StraightWhiteMale" should be one word.
I don't disagree with the premise because I'm defensive. I disagree because they are wrong. Men do not enjoy privilege in this society.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)There are a great many others that matter a lot. Do you come from a well off background? Were you raised with all the "proper" social skills. Are you Tall? Thin? Attractive? Good hair? How good is your social network? How smart are you? How driven are? How well do you connect with people?
I don't think it is harder for a brilliant, beautiful, socially connected, upper class raised, non-white lesbian to be successful compared with an ugly, slow witted, poor white man.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)and some of the responses to it caused me to remember part of a song from the late 70's. I think it was on an old National Lampoon record.
"I wish I was a Negro, with lots of Negro soul
With a butt you can park a six-pack on, and skin as black as coal
If I were a funky Negro eating soul-food barbecue
Then I wouldn't have to sing the Middle-Class Liberal Well-Intentioned Blues.
"Oh, I wish I was a red man...a full-grown Sioux papoose
So when I got drunk on a beer and a half I'd have a good excuse
I'd be a Noble Savage....never wear no socks or shoes
And I wouldn't have to sing the Middle-Class Liberal Well-Intentioned Blues.
"But I am not a Negro, a red man or a Mex
I'm a member of the oppressing age, language, race and sex
I sympathize with the Arab cause, and I feel for the put-upon Jews
And I keep singing....the Middle-Class Liberal.....Humanitarian...Meaningful Dialogue...we-are-all-responsible Well-Intentioned Blues."
And I'll apologize in advance if anyone finds this offensive, being out of context and all. 
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Straight white males comprise.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)is greater than the correlation between homelessness and race. Which underlines the point that many in this thread have brought up. We care about homelessness and poverty, we just don't think that snidely attacking "straight white male privilege" is the best way of addressing these issues.
hotrod0808
(323 posts)I'm sure the intentions behind this post were good, but I disagree with the conclusion of the post. My struggle during my life has now trickled down to my dying infant. This post did nothing but make me feel like a loser. I won't read any more posts from RadiationTherepy on this site.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)There are no "conclusions" in my post other than my own opinion that it is a well-written allegory. If such an opinion or the exposure to information unpleasant to you is grounds for ignoring future posts, I certainly have better things to do with my time than to convince you how thin skinned and limiting that attitude is.
hotrod0808
(323 posts)I'm just not a fan of reading about how the playing field is tilted for me because of my ethnicity. Only having lived my life, I can't tell you that is true. I know completing my education was a long process that I paid for myself, with no help. I know I have never been given a job in my life. I know at my current job, I get no consideration for promotion despite my work record or experience. I know I had to jump through several hoops to receive any assistance for my terminally ill daughter. I appreciate all of these things, especially when I read today about a child of the same disease in Saudi Arabia dying today because he received no help from their system. I don't appreciate your negative criticism of my attitude, because the people I work with have similar stories to mine over all races. The more experience I get in this world tells me that privilege and status have more to do with a decent lifestyle than race, although that issue still has prominence. I don't want to read things like this because I don't care to read about how my life is/should be so much easier.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)to seeing how humans interact and sometimes those perspectives conflict. Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish which parts are true and which parts are false within those perspectives. Thus, discussion.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)isn't confined to people we know.
LiberalArkie
(15,708 posts)Is there anything such as luck.
Take the third founding member of APPLE. just lucking to be picked to be the adult in the group.
But then unlucky and unwilling to take the risk of keeping his position and stock with Apple because he was scared of what might happen if something would happen with the gift he was given..
Luck and courage are both big time factors in success
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)than black men. And no evidence I've seen shows that gay people *as a group* are less likely to "win at the game".
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Plus, as women they're not as likely put in the long hours, be continuously on the job without service breaks, and hence be in the running for top executive jobs.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ladder to the executive suite.
The reasons lie elswhere.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
DFab420
(2,466 posts)It's nice to know that any success I have ever achieved is not because I worked hard and studied and over came speech impedemnts was simply because I was born white.
My father was the youngest of 5 children from a farm in PA. He literally had no support from his father, especially after my grandma died. Inspite of that he went to college on loans, and worked very hard to provide the life for his kids he didnt have. And I am damn sure this is an insult to him.
This article in the OP is nothing but a broad brush against anyone who happened to be born white and male. Are there white males that see privelege in their lives? Yes. But millions do not.
Not only does this post discount the success of some it ignores the troubles of so many
If I had wrote a post lumping a entire racial and sexual group together it would have been torn down immediately. But because it's white males it's ok to stereotype them and demean any life achievements they have made by simply "they gamed the system".
I was born who I am. I didn't choose to be white male and straight. I am tired of it being treated as if I took " the easy way"
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)...game settings aren't the base game settings aren't the same for everyone
Taverner
(55,476 posts)TomClash
(11,344 posts)I am ready to attend re-education camp where I can confess my sins of ease and comfort. 
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)TomClash
(11,344 posts). . . are a precious gift to the Republican Party.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)TomClash
(11,344 posts)Posts like the OP, not yours.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)than, say, something parallel to dr. king's multiracial coalition for economic justice.
TomClash
(11,344 posts)masks class conflict with this silly game.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)let me put it this way- I'd rather be born a black gay male to loving good parents than a white male who's abused by his parent(s).
I bet of all the possible negative factors, that parental abuse (and I don't mean getting yelled at once in a while) rates way up there for impacting a person's life.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)by gender women live longer, are less likely to die violently, be homeless, or imprisoned and have far better chances of graduating high school and college.
So hurray?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)account for those, and religion and your profile will be complete. Straight, White, Christian, Male, No Disabilities, Wealthy and Attractive.
- Many of our homeless are straight, white, christian males who suffer from the disabilities of either PTSD or addiction or both.
- Plenty of straight white females born into either the poor or middle classes will end up wealthy with the world at their feet because they are at the top of the scale in terms of beauty.
The other thing to remember is, just because we have developed a profile of who starts with the least difficulty, doesnt mean that people who are born to that level of low difficulty or close to it, will have an easy time. Its simply 'easier', not necessarily 'easy'.
It also doesnt mean that someone who is the exact opposite of that is guaranteed not to 'make it'.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)could get rich and we (his mixed race kids) would never have to break our backs like he did. he worked right beside blacks and hispanics who were also busting their asses so their kids could have a better life. how about joining us in trying to bring working class whites into the fight against capitalist exploiters of labor instead of further dividing the working class along racial lines. stuff like this plays right into the hands of th 1 percent - and reeks of elitism.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
Median annual earnings of men.
Percentage of working age men employed.
Who does the dangerous work?
Women of any racial background live longer than white men.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Here I have all these breaks and privileges on the lowest difficulty level and I am failing miserably. No work for nine months and I've worked only four of the last nineteen. Either I'm not using my white male superpowers properly or I just suck at life.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)All the breaks are supposed to go to the oppressed majority. Get it?
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I do not get it. It seems an awful lot like you're saying I deserve this. It would be anti-social for me to have a job because of an accident of birth? Other people less skilled than I deserve to work ahead of me because I'm a straight white guy?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of survival ("jobs" and the steps leading to it ("education" are in short supply and only some may have them, and they have to compete for these limited resources.
Thus, arguments about which people "deserve" to have these limited resources and which people "deserve" to have the charity of the "fit" when they fail to compete well.
It's sick and inhuman.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They don't like you. They don't like me. You won't get any grants or scholarships or aid or help. Doing so wouldn't make them feel good about themselves. To the extent that they feel a twinge of need to examine their biases, they rationalize it by describing you as either undeserving or privileged, whichever suits the current purpose.
Fair ain't got nothing to do with it.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Because of my generally optimistic attitude I keep forgetting that most fundamental point.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Who are those all-powerful folks that deny white people things?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)chickypea
(30 posts)I don't know if some WM really don't get it or if this is a particular breed of WM.
White men carry less baggage to being successful than other races and women in the U.S. They are the "victors" and assume the spoils belong to them. It really isn't difficult to understand, but it seems some prefer to wallow in self pity and anecdotal stories instead of looking at the larger picture.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/10/21/older-white-guys-still-make-more-than-most/
Doesn't this mean that white men are not the "victors", but perhaps the silver medalists? Or do Asians not count, for some reason?
chickypea
(30 posts)Asians who come to the US also work harder than WM. I have yet to meet a young white male who deosn't want to be a graphic designer or have something to do with the recoding business. Oh sorry- the majority are going for business, and MBAs in the most "ambitious". They all want to make their money on Wall St. and if that won't happen, on line gambling.
I may be a tad facetious, but only a tad. I work at a small liberal arts college, and it is minoritys and women in the science buildings, and not WM.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The dominance of women and minorities at your college is reflective of the privilege and laziness of white males? To describe this as an idiotic viewpoint is a gross understatement.
chickypea
(30 posts) Marr
(20,317 posts)square those circles.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)they are privileged?
WTF
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Men's pay.
Men's employment. The percentage of the male workforce who have jobs.
chickypea
(30 posts)No surprise. Every white kid thinks they are going to be the next hedge fund billionaire. THAT is NOT an aspiration.
Romulox
(25,960 posts) lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)storyline about how lazy black workers are.
whenever the ruling class wants to justify the lack of decent jobs for all, it points out how lazy some or another segment of workers is.
an old meme, but a good one. because everybody knows an apparently lazy worker in any imaginable category.
rucky
(35,211 posts)
Initech
(100,055 posts)It must be nice not having to worry about getting arrested because daddy has powerful friends, or worrying about having to eek your way through because you have enough to pay student loans and you don't have creditors and debt checkers breathing down your neck.
The highest difficulty level in life? I'm guessing transgendered.
Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Nothing wrong with it, as long as you are happy with who you are.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)begin_within
(21,551 posts)
annabanana
(52,791 posts)get introduced to video games in their youth.. not so illuminating. And for the hard core old bigots that infest this country, you might as well be speaking martian.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...nothing gives a person, ANY kind of person, more of an advantage than does being born into wealth. So in that sense I disagree with the OP - The lowest "difficulty" setting comes with having lots of money.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)A straight white male could be born with crippling neurological disorders, in abject/utter poverty and a billion other variables. How about instead of shunting people into categories we get to know their trials, successes and failures?
This is coming from a gay jew.
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)While your headline is true in many ways, in others it is not. This may not be politically correct to say, but more is expected of straight white males (economically) than from other groups. If a woman can't make enough money to keep her family comfortable, that's certainly stressful-- but no one is going to say she's a bum or somehow less of a woman. If she loses her job, she doesn't lose her identity.
Straight white males are told constantly that they are meant to be providers, and when the economy makes that impossible, they take the blame themselves.
uponit7771
(90,329 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)But if they don't, society doesn't respond in quite the same way they do to a white male.
I'm not here to cry about the plight of white males-- but saying their lives are 'easy mode' is just self-serving, politically correct oversimplification.
LetTimmySmoke
(1,202 posts)