The problem with systems of privilege and powers starts with their own definitions...

[MrScorpio]

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

The beneficiaries define what's good and moral, usually in ways that are uniquely self-congratulatory and self-aggrandizing, and absolutely lacking in any need to be self-improving. Pretty much a recipe for the arbitrary promotion of mediocrity. Their own centralized reality need not be challenged and all others are relegated to inferior and inconsequential positions. Even the mere mention of unfair distributions of equality and resource is enough to put a stress and strain on the psyche of the privileged... After all, if the system by which they're doing best seems somehow unfair, faulty and inadequate, what does that say about those who both promote it and benefit from it?

Most people aren't emotionally equipped to have their own worldview accurately challenged. When faced with such a dilemma, they in engage in coping behaviors, like denial, bargaining and anger. Anger towards those who have dared to upset the apple cart: ("Such and such people are doing poorly only because they have shortcomings that they can't or won't overcome and I've rightly earned everything that I have.&quot Of course, that's all bullshit... And the epitome of systemically induced bigotry as well.

Issues are reduced down to the mere feelings of those who are privileged and only to the extent to which they're willing to admit to whatever is deemed 'problematic' by themselves. So, we're only left to talking on THEIR terms and no one else's. ("Hey, I didn't know." Or, "I'm not at fault here.&quot Everything else becomes too hard. The inability to discuss how group dynamics work, the unwillingness or inability to understand the consequences of merely being part of such groups and the legacies of thereof becomes an insurmountable struggle. The irony of denying that a problem exists, yet responding by exacerbating it is lost on them, especially when they refuse to step outside of their own individualist way of looking at the world.

But I don't have to accept it, my self-worth isn't at stake here. Also, only the most callously bigoted, cynical, obtuse and sociopathic are fine, benefiting from systematically unfair distributions of power privilege that they know that they've never earned.

To the privileged, their own sense of what's real and is what not is only acceptable... Even if it's impossible to apply the same rules to others. The inability to discuss alternatives becomes the crux of some conflict.

- We have men telling women that their own understanding of the world is faulty and inadequate.

- Whites in the majority who believe that they know more about living as a person of color than people of color themselves.

- Straights who fail to legitimize the mere existence of anyone who isn't straight.

- The abled who never see common and easily correctable obstacles in the world of the disabled

Frankly... I'm too tired to be constantly dealing with that level of cluelessness and unwillingness to see beyond one's own narrowly defined parameters. Not to mention those who are only in it to promote their own mendacity. I don't plan on giving up and agreeing with their bullshit. However, lately, I've taken to letting them know that I'm not obligated to respect it and I prefer to do that without any regard for their 'feelings'...

Even then, for some reason, that really pisses them off.

As if I really give a fuck that it does.

[Number23]

1. Wonderful. I have to say that the sexism on display lately has been jaw dropping

This is not indicative or reflective of any one candidate but I was absolutely FLABBERGASTED when Jeff Weaver decided to take it upon himself to tell everyone that Barbara Boxer wasn't really afraid when she was rushed on the stage at the Nevada convention.

Who gave that man the right to TELL a woman how she feels about anything? Boxer was clearly afraid for her safety and even though she gave those folks the finger on the way out -- which I think the majority of the feisty women in this forum would have as well -- I don't think that any woman would not have been incredibly frightened about being screamed at, rushed at and called a "bitch" and worse by a crowd of lunatics.

We've also seen where SEVERAL regulars in this forum -- every last one of them women -- have been harassed including letters sent to their homes, and emails sent to their private accounts. We've also seen where several of them have been regularly harassed by men in the other forums even after repeatedly asking, begging, demanding that they leave them alone.

I don't know what's going on with alot of men right now. They seem to be losing their minds. As you pointed out, racism has always been an issue but it seems that the harassment of women online and off seems to be at a fever pitch right now and I really don't know why or when it's going to stop.

[MrScorpio]

2. I'm not only on DU, but I subscribe to a few lefty sites on my Disqus feed...

The same shit that going on here is at work in places like Crooks And Liars and Raw Story. These aren't trolls, as trolls are usually dealt with by site mods. These are so-called liberal privileged people (take your pick), who seem to be unable to get it through their heads that general and specific condemnations of systems of privilege are not judgements about them as individuals.

I mean, who gives a fuck who they are?

They have this obsessive need to make it ALL about them, rather than addressing any demonstrations that the systems are wrong and unfair.

And it stopping? It's not going to stop until men tell other men to cut that shit out. Patriarchy is a male problem, one that we create and make women the victims and targets of. As men do this to women, it hurts us all by extension.

The same can be said for racism being a white people's problem and homophobia a straight people's problem. Blaming and castigating the victims of privileged classes is nothing more than pure laziness and lack of self- awareness.

[Number23]

3. "It's not going to stop until men tell other men to cut that shit out."

You got that right. Unfortunately, the number of men on DU and in society at large that are willing to step up and tell other men to stop harassing, stop insulting and stop trying to intimidate women are few indeed.

Shockingly, I think the number of whites that tell other whites to stop being racist assholes is higher than the number of men who tell other men to cut the shit out. No one is more surprised by that than I am, but I do think it's true. But I think it just has more to do with what looks better socially. The power structure may in some ways view those who speak out against racism as being more powerful than those that speak out against sexism. Even though we all know that "speaking out" against racism is fairly easy to do, even for hard core racists.

Stopping racism may not be viewed as "effeminate" as stopping sexism. Though Lord knows that both ills are in grand supply in the world we live. I think I'm rambling but I'm kind of working this through my brain as I type.

[MrScorpio]

4. Saw right... Ramble On

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Do you know why? ...

Shockingly, I think the number of whites that tell other whites to stop being racist assholes is higher than the number of men who tell other men to cut the shit out.

Because a white telling another white person to cut that racist shit out, really does not affect them; by a (straight) man, telling another (straight) man to cut out misogynistic shit, means that my inter-sexual relationships are affected.

[Number23]

11. I think that's an excellent point. But I also think that if one is true, then the other must be as

well. If white people telling other white people to cut something out DOES affect them, it may get them to consider their own behavior which is the point you're making about men and sexism.

But I just want to give you yet another big, fat kiss. I loved what you did for Priyanka in your thread calling out the stupidity that she was having to deal with. That was so incredibly kind of you. Brave too.

?

You're awesome.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Especially WOC.

Notably so. I'm a FG host and I get some blowback in discussions, but not the doxxing and harassment.

[Number23]

9. I know. It's astonishing. And it's even more bizarre when you note that the admins are probably not

doing much to solve any of it.

Now, I know they probably can't do much to the guys that sent those psychotic letters to bravenak's home, but here on DU I have for YEARS -- emphasis on YEARS -- sent notes to the admins about a poster or two, always white guys -- ALWAYS -- that always felt compelled to respond to me and in the most needlessly over the top abusive, psychotic language.

Despite me begging, pleading, demanding that they leave me alone they refuse. One of them told me fairly recently that they'd stop responding to me when I "stopped posting." And when I'd tell them -- yet AGAIN -- to fuck off, my posts would almost always be alerted on, but to give immense credit to DU, those posts were never hidden. I guess even DU juries feel that people have the right to tell lunatics to back off and leave them the hell alone.

I've sent all of this crap to the admins. The admins have agreed that the interactions are unnecessary and say more about the other individual than anything else but that's it, as far as I know. Admins could easily send a warning to this person, put them on forced ignore with me or something. We've all read a thousand stories about the harassment of female posters on web sites and on social media by psychotics and yet, the admins here do nothing when provided with AMPLE proof of harassment. It's no surprise to me that the situation here seems to be getting a hell of a lot worse. I don't know how bad it has to get before something is done.

[Kind of Blue]

5. "Issues are reduced down to the mere feelings

of those who are privileged and only to the extent to which they're willing to admit to whatever is deemed 'problematic' boy themselves."

That became striking to me in another thread in this group, The We Shall Overcome song thread sung at a Sanders' rally. One longtime DUer stepped in to explain that "The history of the song is complex, but was used routinely by the labor movement before it was used by the modern civil rights movement."

When given accurate information, did this DUer come back to say "Thanks for the info, I didn't know, it expands my understanding?" Or to even say, yes, based on those facts the OP does have a strong point that the song has a particular meaning for the Civil Rights Movement. Nope, he went right to his protected group to state that he entered the manufactured outrage thread neutrally.

Given facts, even the simplest of issues still boiled down to "mere feelings." Anything to the contrary has got too be hard, as you've stated. But I really take heart that we do regularly here and elsewhere reveal biases for what they are. Knowing that though we are in a grind, I bet the long time DUer will not come back with uniformed "feelings." That level of cluelessness is just untenable.

[MrScorpio]

6. I'm glad that you've excerpted that part. You helped my find a typo that I missed

Thanks!

[Kind of Blue]

7. Ha! Didn't even see it.

I guess the brain automatically makes sense of slight visual errors.