A Look at the Myth of Reverse.....ism

[Madspirit]

(Keep in mind this is equally applicable as regards sexism or any other nasty "ism" or "phobia"...Lee)

http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml

A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism
Posted: Monday, June 24, 2002

By Tim Wise

Recently, when speaking to a group of high school students, I was asked why I only seemed to be concerned about white racism towards people of color. We had been discussing racial slurs, and a number of white students wondered why I didn’t get as upset about blacks using terms like “honky” or “cracker,” as I did about whites using words like “nigger.”

Although such an issue may seem trivial in the larger scheme of things—especially given the more significant discussions about racism in the educational system that I had hoped to engage in that day—the challenge posed by the students was actually an important one. In fact, it allowed a discussion about the very essence of what racism is and how it operates.

On the one hand, of course, such slurs are quite obviously inappropriate and offensive, and ought not to be used. That said, I pointed out that even the mention of the words “honky” and “cracker” had elicited laughter; and not only from the black students in attendance, but also from other whites.

The words are so silly, so juvenile, so utterly pathetic that they hardly qualify as racial slurs at all, let alone slurs on a par with those that have been historically deployed against people of color.

The lack of symmetry between a word like honky and a slur such as “nigger” was made apparent in an old Saturday Night Live skit, with Chevy Chase and guest, Richard Pryor.

In the skit, Chase and Pryor face one another and trade off racial epithets during a segment of Weekend Update. Chase calls Pryor a “porch monkey.” Pryor responds with “honky.” Chase ups the ante with “jungle bunny.” Pryor, unable to counter with a more vicious slur against whites, responds with “honky, honky.” Chase then trumps all previous slurs with “nigger,” to which Pryor responds: “dead honky.”

The line elicits laughs all around, but also makes clear, at least implicitly that when it comes to racial antilocution, people of color are limited in the repertoire of slurs they can use against whites, and even the ones of which they can avail themselves sound more comic than hateful. The impact of hearing the antiblack slurs in the skit was of a magnitude unparalleled by hearing Pryor say “honky” over and over again.

As a white person I always saw terms like honky or cracker as evidence of how much more potent white racism was than any variation on the theme practiced by the black or brown.

When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right.

So whereas “nigger” was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to “put them in their place” if you will, the same cannot be said of honky: after all, you can’t put white people in their place when they own the place to begin with.

Power is like body armor. And while not all white folks have the same degree of power, there is a very real extent to which all of us have more than we need vis-à-vis people of color: at least when it comes to racial position, privilege and perceptions.

Consider poor whites. To be sure, they are less financially powerful than wealthy people of color. But that misses the point of how racial privilege operates within a class system.

Within a class system, people tend to compete for “stuff” against others of their same basic economic status. In other words, rich and poor are not competing for the same homes, bank loans, jobs, or even educations to a large extent. Rich competes against rich, working class against working class and poor against poor. And in those competitions racial privilege most certainly attaches.

Poor whites are rarely typified as pathological, dangerous, lazy or shiftless the way poor blacks are, for example. Nor are they demonized the way poor Latino/a immigrants tend to be.

When politicians want to scapegoat welfare recipients they don’t pick Bubba and Crystal from some Appalachian trailer park; they choose Shawonda Jefferson from the Robert Taylor Homes, with her seven children.

And according to reports from a number of states, ever since so-called welfare reform, white recipients have been treated far better by caseworkers, are less likely to be bumped off the rolls for presumed failure to comply with new regulations, and have been given far more assistance at finding new jobs than their black or brown counterparts.

Poor whites are more likely to have a job, tend to earn more than poor people of color, and are even more likely to own their own home. Indeed, whites with incomes under $13,000 annually are more likely to own their own home than blacks with incomes that are three times higher due to having inherited property.

None of this is to say that poor whites aren’t being screwed eight ways to Sunday by an economic system that relies on their immiseration: they are. But they nonetheless retain a certain “one-up” on equally poor or even somewhat better off people of color thanks to racism.

It is that one-up that renders the potency of certain prejudices less threatening than others. It is what makes cracker or honky less problematic than any of the slurs used so commonly against the black and brown.

In response to all this, skeptics might say that people of color can indeed exercise power over whites, at least by way of racially-motivated violence. Such was the case, for example, this week in New York City where a black man shot two whites and one Asian-Pacific Islander before being overpowered. Apparently he announced that he wanted to kill white people, and had hoped to set a wine bar on fire to bring such a goal to fruition.

There is no doubt his act was one of racial bigotry, and that to those he was attempting to murder his power must have seemed quite real. Yet there are problems with claiming that this “power” proves racism from people of color is just as bad as the reverse.

First, racial violence is also a power whites have, so the power that might obtain in such a situation is hardly unique to non-whites, unlike the power to deny a bank loan for racial reasons, to "steer" certain homebuyers away from living in “nicer" neighborhoods, or to racially profile in terms of policing. Those are powers that can only be exercised by the more dominant group as a practical and systemic matter.

Additionally, the "power" of violence is not really power at all, since to exercise it, one has to break the law and subject themselves to probable legal sanction.

Power is much more potent when it can be deployed without having to break the law to do it, or when doing it would only risk a small civil penalty at worst. So discrimination in lending, though illegal is not going to result in the perp going to jail; so too with employment discrimination or racial profiling.

There are plenty of ways that more powerful groups can deploy racism against less powerful groups without having to break the law: by moving away when too many of "them" move in (which one can only do if one has the option of moving without having to worry about discrimination in housing.)

Or one can discriminate in employment but not be subjected to penalty, so long as one makes the claim that the applicant of color was "less qualified," even though that determination is wholly subjective and rarely scrutinized to see if it was determined accurately, as opposed to being a mere proxy for racial bias. In short, it is institutional power that matters most.

Likewise, it’s the difference in power and position that has made recent attempts by American Indian activists in Colorado to turn the tables on white racists so utterly ineffective.

Indian students at Northern Colorado University, fed up by the unwillingness of white school district administrators in Greeley to change the name and grotesque Indian caricature of the Eaton High School “Reds,” recently set out to flip the script on the common practice of mascot-oriented racism.

Thinking they would show white folks what it’s like to “be in their shoes” and experience the objectification of being a team icon, indigenous members of an intramural basketball team renamed themselves the “Fightin’ Whiteys,” and donned t-shirts with the team mascot: a 1950’s-style caricature of a suburban, middle class white guy, next to the phrase “every thang’s gonna be all white.”

Funny though the effort was, it has not only failed to make the point intended, but indeed has been met with laughter and even outright support by white folks. Rush Limbaugh actually advertised for the team’s t-shirts on his radio program, and whites from coast to coast have been requesting team gear, thinking it funny to be turned into a mascot, as opposed to demeaning.

Of course the difference is that it’s tough to negatively objectify a group whose power and position allows them to define the meaning of another group’s attempts at humor: in this case the attempt by Indians to teach them a lesson. It’s tough to school the headmaster, in other words.

Objectification works against the disempowered because they are disempowered. The process doesn’t work in reverse, or at least, making it work is a lot tougher than one might think.

Turning Indians into mascots has been offensive precisely because it is a continuation of the dehumanization of such persons over many centuries; the perpetuation of the mentality of colonization and conquest.

It is not as if one group—whites—merely chose to turn another group—Indians—into mascots. Rather, it is that one group, whites, have consistently viewed Indians as less than fully human, as savage, as “wild,” and have been able to not merely portray such imagery on athletic banners and uniforms, but in history books and literature more crucially.

In the case of the students at Northern, they would need to be a lot more acerbic in their appraisal of whites, in order for their attempts at “reverse racism” to make the point intended. After all, “fightin” is not a negative trait in the eyes of most white folks, and the 1950’s iconography chosen for the uniforms was unlikely to be seen as that big a deal.

Perhaps if they had settled on “slave-owning whiteys,” or “murdering whiteys,” or “land-stealing whiteys,” or “smallpox-giving-on-purpose whiteys,” or “Native-people-butchering whiteys,” or “mass raping whiteys,” the point would have been made.

And instead of a smiling “company man” logo, perhaps a Klansman, or skinhead as representative of the white race: now that would have been a nice functional equivalent of the screaming Indian warrior. But see, you gotta go strong to turn the tables on the man, and ironic sarcasm just ain’t gonna get it nine times out of ten.

Without the power to define another group’s reality, Indian activists are simply incapable of turning the tables by way of well-placed humor.

Simply put, what separates white racism from any other form, and what makes anti-black, anti-brown, anti-yellow, or anti-red humor more biting and more dangerous than its anti-white equivalent is the ability of the former to become lodged in the minds of and perceptions of the citizenry.

White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say Indians are savages (be they of the “noble” or vicious type), then by God, they’ll be seen as savages. If Indians say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all.

The day that someone produces a newspaper ad that reads: “Twenty honkies for sale today: good condition, best offer accepted,” or “Cracker to be lynched tonight: whistled at black woman,” then perhaps I’ll see the equivalence of these slurs with the more common type to which we’ve grown accustomed.

When white churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint “kill the honkies” on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I’ll take seriously these concerns over “reverse racism.”

Until then, I guess I’ll find myself laughing at the thought of another old Saturday Night Live skit: this time with Garrett Morris as a convict in the prison talent show who sings:

Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see. Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see. And once I kill all the whiteys I see Then whitey he won’t bother me Gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whiteys I see.

Sorry, but it just isn’t the same.

Tim Wise is an anti-racist essayist, activist and lecturer. He can be reached at [e-mail]

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. "Without the power to define another group’s reality"

Do you truly not see how this phenomenon works in the DU microcosm?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Madspirit]

7. I Just Hate It When Black People Say Bad Things About White People

See how very stupid that sounds? To be on top complaining....

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

12. It would be stupid, if it weren't so damn FUNNY!

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

13. White people are simply not on top

I don't come home from my $5.5 an hour janitorial job and lord it over Oprah who is doing my laundry. That's over 150 years ago, and my family never owned slaves, in fact thousands of my (distant) relatives risked and many lost their lives to free the slaves. I mention that because I am proud of them.

Yes, blah blah blah. The 6,850,000 white households making less than $10,000 a year are a little better off because of their white skin than the 2,380,000 black households making less than $10,000 a year, but they simply are not better off than the 55% of black households which make over $25,000 a year.

Couldn't we just try to end povery and provide a good education and health care and work for everybody instead of making some groups 100% victims and other groups 100% oppressors?

[Madspirit]

14. Did you read the OP? ...n/t

[Madspirit]

15. Let me know when a bunch of white churches are burned down by black people...n/t

[Madspirit]

16. Let me know when you can't drive through East Texas without fearing you won't make it out alive..n/t

[Madspirit]

17. Let me know when they drag you behind a pick-up truck until your head comes off...n/t

[hfojvt]

I think Matthew Shepherd was white

Does that count?

You are talking about criminal activities - which the OP discounted. Plus, there is not a complete absence of white crime victims either. Around here it seems that there are lots of young black people shooting and beating the crap out of other black people. I don't understand how the actions of a few psychotic racists mean that white = ruling class.

[Katherine Brengle]

30. gay - homophobia. woman - sexism. black/brown - racism.

These are all tentacles of the same entitlement beast.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Gay - homophobia. Woman - misogyny. Men - misandry.

Sexism is a gender neutral term. It is a two-way street.

[Katherine Brengle]

45. Okay - we get it - you're a man - you're suffering.

Seriously, what's your deal?

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Seriously, my deal is I dislike predjudice in all its forms.

I appear to be somewhat unique in this view.

Sadly, I don't think you are getting it.

[ThomCat]

57. You clearly think that prejudice is some technical thing

that comes from a dictionary.

You clearly don't understand the role that dominance, power, and normative influence have. You should read the OP. The author discusses it very clearly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Yeah, I think that words mean things, and that dictionaries are useful in that regard.

I'm funny that way.

The author of the OP is talking about racial prejudice, but it is being used by the original poster to justify prejudicial gender attitudes.

Racial prejudice and the gender equality are quantitatively and qualitatively different issues.

[ThomCat]

81. If they are quantitatively different

it's because sexism is far more common, women being far more common and spread equally throughout the population.

If they are quantitatively different then I'd love to see you prove it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Women are not a minority. Oppressed or otherwise.

When blacks control most of the country's wealth, and are 50% more likely to go to college than their oppressors, then I'll consider the situations analagous.

[ThomCat]

90. You don't think women are oppressed?

:wtf:

That's just crazy. The documented pay disparities, the glass ceilings, the way women's private lives are automatically fodder for public consumption and judgement, the differences in how women are treated by the law, by the medical profession, etc.

The idea that anyone in this day and age doesn't see the oppression women have historically dealt with, and continue to deal with, boggles the mind.

Wow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Here's some stats

By a 3:2 ratio, women outnumber men in college
Women control most of the wealth in the country
Breast cancer research funding is six times that of prostate cancer research funding
Men are far more likely to die or be injured in the workplace
In urban centers, womens starting wages are outpacing those of men. http://www.thestate.com/news/story/137114.html
As a byproduct of how the medical profession treats women differently, they live almost 6 years longer.

These make a strong case that the prevailing belief in female oppression is overstated.

[ThomCat]

95. Where the hell do you get the idea that women control

most of the wealth in this country?

Are you assuming that because Sam Walton's widow is wealthy this somehow means that women in general somehow have more wealth than men? :wtf:

Yes, women NOW outnumber men in college, but men still get more job offers, get paid almost half again more than women for the same jobs, are evaluated as being more competent than women producing the same results, and are promoted faster and higher.

Men are more likely to die in the workplace because women are still largely confined to pink-collar jobs.

Women have always had higher life expectancies than men, and it has nothing do do with how the medical industry treates them. Medical research has mostly been done on men, as one poster already explained even breast cancer research was done on men until recently. Drugs have tended to be tested on men. Medical treatements have been evaluated based on how men fare with those treatments. Women, like black people, have been largely left out of many medical trials.

You clearly beleive that there is no discrimination against women. As a guy you don't experience it, and you clearly don't see it. But all that means is that you are blind, not that sexism doesn't exist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Demographics? Economics? A newspaper? A calculator? What answer do you want?

most of the wealth in this country?

http://www.allbusiness.com/construction/4267198-1.html

Are you assuming that because Sam Walton's widow is wealthy this somehow means that women in general somehow have more wealth than men?

Yes, in part. Just like Oprah and others in their economic cohort. Women control half of the family assets of couples, and 100% of their individual wealth. The majority of privately-held wealth.

Yes, women NOW outnumber men in college, but men still get more job offers, get paid almost half again more than women for the same jobs, are evaluated as being more competent than women producing the same results, and are promoted faster and higher.

They do now, they have for some time and they will for the forseeable future.

These studies that you indirectly refer to are flawed because they do not attempt to normalize. It stands to reason that a man who didn't take a child rearing sabbatical has better workplace prospects. http://www.warrenfarrell.net/TheBook/index.html

Men are more likely to die in the workplace because women are still largely confined to pink-collar jobs.

In my area, most of the work available to the men who didn't go to college are in trades like construction, logging and commercial fishing. No one is confining anyone to other careers. Fishing, construction and logging suck. No one wants to die or be crippled, but those who feel an obligation to provide the highest possible incomes for their families understand the risks and take the jobs anyhow. Having the alternative of a "pink-collar job" is a luxury that most alaska crab fishermen wouldn't mind having.

Women have always had higher life expectancies than men, and it has nothing do do with how the medical industry treates them. Medical research has mostly been done on men, as one poster already explained even breast cancer research was done on men until recently. Drugs have tended to be tested on men. Medical treatements have been evaluated based on how men fare with those treatments. Women, like black people, have been largely left out of many medical trials.

Not true. 100 years ago, a man and a woman of age 20 could expect to die about the same time.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Medical science has increased womens lifespans dramatically. Less so for men.

You clearly beleive that there is no discrimination against women. As a guy you don't experience it, and you clearly don't see it. But all that means is that you are blind, not that sexism doesn't exist.

Speculation on what others believe is something that is not in short supply in this thread.

I'll tell you what I believe, not the other way 'round.
1) Women don't know what men don't tell them. In the absence of a man saying, "wait a minute, I don't believe that"; some women obviously feel free to speculate.
2) Equality won't spring spontaneously from a battlefield.
3) I want my kids to have a good education, but for a variety of reasons, many of which are a direct result of the battlefield gender relationships, they are unlikely to.
4) The patriarchy isn't a one-sided construct imposed upon women by men. It arose out of a social paradigm in which men are supposed to be the protector. The protectors life is inherently worth less than those he protects. If we are to discard the patriarchy, we must discard all the assumptions that underlie it.
5) Victimhood begets entitlement, and no one will willingly give that up once they've had a taste.

[ThomCat]

106. Just because a few women at the top have money

does not mean that women in general control 60% of anything. You keep ignoring the well known and frequently documented fact that women get paid 2/3 of what men do when doing the same job. And that women get promoted more slowly, and get smaller raises when they do get promoted, and often don't get promoted at all.

You're cherry picking and misrepresenting the facts.

Women are now the majority of college students, but you ignore that women benefit less from a college degree than men do. As mentioned above, and in several pervious posts, men make half again more than women when they work the same or equivilent jobs. So the fact that more women are going to college doesn't mean that somehow women don't face discrimination.

Check that life expectancy chart again. YOu're again cherry picking the data. For almost every single year given, women had a life expectancy of several years longer than men. You searched for one year with abberant results and you're using that to make a generalization.

You clearly haven't noticed that I'm a guy. You keep insisting that women don't know what men think. Well, at the very least you'd have to admit that I do. And your sexism is showing if you think women are that clueless about the other half of the population that they live with, socialize with, work with (and for), and raise from birth.

Your description of patriachy, and somehow implying that men are worth less, is laughable. Is that why men get the better pay, and more authority, and still disproportionately dominate all aspects of law, medicine, government and big business?

Where do you see this supposed greater value that women hold in patriarchy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

177. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer.

Just because a few women at the top have money does not mean that women in general control 60% of anything. You keep ignoring the well known and frequently documented fact that women get paid 2/3 of what men do when doing the same job. And that women get promoted more slowly, and get smaller raises when they do get promoted, and often don't get promoted at all.

A) Yes it does. Oprah is a woman. She controls her wealth. Women (Oprah included) control nearly 60% of the privately-held wealth in the country. Statistics are like that.
B) I'm not ignoring it because I'm not disputing it. Women (for many reasons, including fewer hours worked and fewer years in their careers) earn less. I assume that these "well known and frequently documented" pay disparity stats don't (unlike your fundamental dispute of the wealth control) arbitrarily exclude high-income men.

Women are now the majority of college students, but you ignore that women benefit less from a college degree than men do. As mentioned above, and in several pervious posts, men make half again more than women when they work the same or equivilent jobs. So the fact that more women are going to college doesn't mean that somehow women don't face discrimination.

Huh? The fact that men get bypassed for college in favor of women doesn't imply that women don't face discrimination? Would you agree that the fact that blacks are less likely to go to college than whites is evidence of a systemic problem? Why not men?

Check that life expectancy chart again. YOu're again cherry picking the data. For almost every single year given, women had a life expectancy of several years longer than men. You searched for one year with abberant results and you're using that to make a generalization.

Then here's a better one
http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade00.html

Life expectancy, 1900
47.3 female
46.3 male

Medical science has nearly doubled this, but disproportionately for women.

ou clearly haven't noticed that I'm a guy. You keep insisting that women don't know what men think. Well, at the very least you'd have to admit that I do. And your sexism is showing if you think women are that clueless about the other half of the population that they live with, socialize with, work with (and for), and raise from birth.

Your description of patriachy, and somehow implying that men are worth less, is laughable. Is that why men get the better pay, and more authority, and still disproportionately dominate all aspects of law, medicine, government and big business?

Where do you see this supposed greater value that women hold in patriarchy?

I've noticed, it's in your profile. You, like me, have a one-data-point advantage over a couple of the other posters in this thread, a 100% improvement in perspective is valuable. It is no more sexist to suggest that men are better equipped to speak for the issues facing men than women who suggest that women are better equipped to speak on the topic of abortion. The usual suspects take it a step further; they feel equipped to speak for what men think but don't say, they thus demonstrate empowerment to judge the value of the entire gender.

I'm not implying that the patriarchy was based on a relative unimportance of male lives, I'm saying it. Who's worth more, the secret service agent who is hired to take a bullet, or the elected official he is there to protect? That's what protection is about.

Let me ask my elected officials if they're oppressing women... Gov. Christine? Sen. Patty? Sen. Maria?

They're pretty sure that they're not oppressing women.

[ThomCat]

193. You're clearly deluded.

1. The fact that a few women control a lot of wealth doesn't mean that women in general control wealth. A few women only control wealth for their individual lifetimes. Men, as a group, have controlled wealth for thousands of years and continue to.

Also, the 100 wealthiest people in the world are disproportionately men, so your idea that a few rich women change everything is directly ridiculous.

2. Patriarchy is not about men protecting women. It's about men being in charge of women.

Men mostly don't protect women. That's why rape and sexual assault are epidemic, and among the least reported and least prosecuted crimes. Where are these men who supposedly take bullets for women? You're delusional.

Patriarchy is what puts men at the heads of most companies. Pointing out a couple of women who finally in recent years made it to the top of the ladder doesn't counter the truth that it's mostly men at the top.

Patriarchy is what put men in charge of government. Pointing out that a few women are in government doesn't change the fact that it's still very incredibly disproportionately men and always has been.

You have yet to present a single coherent point showing that patriarchy somehow benefits women.

3. You still haven't shown that healthcare somehow benefits women more than men. You're still showing numbers that show that women have a higher life expectancy than men in general regardless of the level of healthcare they had available. That proves my point that it's biology that is prolonging their lives, not healthcare, so your argument about healthcare is totally wrong.

[wicket]

197. Wonderful post

A million thank-yous :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. The sins of the fathers

a) you appear to be suggesting that wives don't own half of marital assets

b) you appear to be saying that because you consider the implications ridiculous, that the observation must be false. The problem is not mine. Most of the wealth (not income) in this country is controlled by women, either individually or as marital partners.

c) the patriarchy didn't evolve to sanction rape or gender violence. It evolved to facilitate the survival of offspring. It is an anachronism which is demonstrably harmful today, but it was an anachronism which at one time was useful. One quick way to see how the patriarchy benefited women is to quickly peruse the names on the Vietnam wall. As a mental exercise, what do you think would have happened differently if 95% of the US casualties were women? Unless you believe that the war would have gone on even longer in that case, then it's hard to defend the view that mens lives are more valuable.
Another way is to spend some time in family court, a strong bias exists toward awarding custody to women.

d) lifespans have nearly doubled in the previous century. Do you disagree that this is a result of improved healthcare? Womens lifespans have increased to a greater degree than mens. Am I to assume that only men's lifespans have lengthened as a result of improved healthcare and that women's lifespans have increased because of good karma?

[ThomCat]

207. Again, you're posting unsupported nonsense.

1. Women may legally own half of the marital wealth while they are married, but...

In almost every cast on the Forbes list it's the husband who bring in the wealth, and the husband who controls it while he's alive.

And, when the husband dies that money almost always gets split up among various people and charities, so the wife usually retains less than half. We've mentioned the Waltons already. When Sam Walton died his wife did not get half. It got split between a whole lot of relatives, and a family owned corporation controls that money for the whole family.

2. Your observations are false. Women do not control anywhere near the majority of the world's wealth. That is pure delusion on your part.

3. Patriarchy certainly did evolve to sanction rape and gender violence. They are only epidemic in patriarchical societies. The more power men have, the more rape and sexual assault are common and ignored. There is a direct correlation between how patriarchical a society is and how easily a woman can be raped with impunity.

The fact that wars have been mostly fought by men does not prove that they are protecting women. Wars have been fought to protect the political and corporate interests of other men. If you think that male soldiers are dying to protect the women folk back at home then you've been drinking too much of someone's koolade.

4. As lifespans have doubled, the age discrepancy has also doubled. The ratio has remained relatively unchanged.

You're also ignoring that even the medical industry accepts that it has been developed by men, predominantly for men. Medications have been tested mostly on men. Lawsuits and changes in the law have been needed, after a great deal of fighting, to get women's health issues covered at all by insurance companies. And that fight is still ongoing.

You keep insisting that medicine benefits women, but you're presenting absolutely no evidence. You're presenting a pet theory (and a rediculous one) that says that a universal, biological difference in life spans is the result of a local, modern healthcare system. (That sucks, and is run disproportionately by men.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

212. ... and you object to *my* unsupported nonsense?

1) Where did you get the idea that when men die they "almost always" don't leave the wealth to their surviving spouse? And even if the husband dies and leaves his wealth to a foundation, who generally runs that foundation? Please provide your data.
2) Just wrong. I provided you with a link to the background research, but alas, I can't make you read it.
3) I should thus assume that internal combustion engines were created for the purpose of facilitating car wrecks.
Rape and gender violence are more likely because of the patriarchy, but they were not its purpose.
Wars are fought for other reasons than the reasons why men enlist. Men enlist because they buy into the knight/protector paradigm. There's a disconnect between the reasons soldiers die and the reasons why they are sent to die.
4) sheesh, I feel like your animated icon. In 1900, a woman could expect to live one year longer than a man. Today, she'll live six years longer. My "pet theory" is that men and women live longer than they used to because of medical progress, the five-year biological predisposition to longer life is nothing more than a modern cultural assumption.

[ThomCat]

215. You are clearly confusing spending with owning.

Your article talked about women as customers, and made a dubious projection about women controlling the majority of wealth in the future.

I spend $4.2 million per year on telecom products and service. Every penny of it needs my signature. Yet not one penny of it is my wealth.

Saying that women are spending most a family's income doesn't mean she controlls the wealth. It means that women still do all the shopping.

You really need to go back and look at your "proof." If you bother to do so, you'll find you don't have any.

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. No, you still don't get it.

The chairman of your board of directors controls your organizations wealth. They control it because they delegate to you the responsiblity to spend within your sphere of expertise.

In a family, husbands and wives share that control.

The article talked about women as customers in the context that the demographic reality suggests marketing tactics.

[myrna minx]

228. Thank you ThomCat.

You are far more eloquent and restrained that I could ever hope to be.

[ThomCat]

109. Some sources.

Wealth and Inequality, based on 2001 data.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewshartmann.html

And here's one that talks about the historical (and current) wealth gap that consistently favors men. This article claims that being a female head of household is no longer the immediate cause of that gab as often as it used to be, but the increase in enforcement of child support is the likely (but unmentioned) cause of this change. That still doesn't change the overall gender gap. Men still have more wealth than women.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_2_32/ai_n14711313

Here's a decent place to start looking at how women with degrees are overlooked or considered unqualified compared to men with the same degrees.
http://nanopolitan.blogspot.com/2007/07/gender-disparity-in-science-and.html

"research conducted since this time has consistently revealed that gender discrimination in schools remains, especially in the areas of science and mathematics. Girls are not receiving the same quality, or even quantity, of education as their male classmates."
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ698726&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ698726

Here's an interesting blog that comments on women being driven out of high tech by being ignored and underrepresented in discussions and literature. Again, men have the power to dominate discussions, and often do so. Then they make up the claim that women don't succeed because they're not as good at math or technology as men are.
http://www.teamlalala.com/blog/category/gender-disparity-in-tech/

Here's one of many articles that show women don't get the same medical care as men, and get effective treatments later when they have more severe symptoms. This particular article is about Rheumatoid Arthritis, which I have.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/74350.php

[wicket]

151. Excellent

:thumbsup:

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. The links you provided are in two categories;

1) links about pay disparity and poverty. I don't dispute the fact that women, especially single moms, often live in poverty and have poor earnings. I said that women control most of the wealth. Is an explanation of the difference between wealth (net worth) and income necessary?

2) Sites concerning the relative lack of women teaching college level science. Is this meant to imply that women are underrepresented in teaching? What are the gender proportions of high school teachers? Primary school? It is generally accepted that one of the primary reasons that boys don't go to college is the relative lack of male teachers.

[ThomCat]

186. Don't be deliverately obtuse.

If women consistently earn less then men then they do not control the wealth. Men get paid more, keep more, spend more, have more in investments and therefore have more wealth.

Women have a greater chance of living in poverty. There is a correlation between being single and being poor, so the women who tend to have the most wealth are married, which means they hold that wealth jointly with men.

This idea that women hold the world's wealth is ridiculous.

The links other links are not all about teaching college level science. You're trying to be so narrow that you deliberately refuse to see the point. Even when women get college degrees they don't get the same benefit from them that men do.

Even when women have the same degrees as men they don't get treated the same. They don't get hired at the same rate. They don't get taken as seriously.

And, I would argue that women, in general, need college degrees more than men because without a college degree they are stuck in the lowest paid dead end jobs. Men have better access to the few good jobs that don't require a degree. Some fields are now looking for certifications instead of degrees, and those fields tend to be predominantly male. So of course women are pushing themselves to go to college in ever greater numbers. They have no choice. Men should be pushing just as hard to get degrees, but the fact that they aren't says that they don't feel like they need to.

As a personal example, when an opening came up in my office for a telecommunications analyst we interviewed dozens of people before hiring someone. The person I wanted to hire had a degree and 10 years of experience in a place I used to work. I know exactly what job she was doing, the difficult of that job, and the skills required. I knew she was qualified and said so.

My boss insisted that she wasn't qualified, and never explained why he thought so. He just insisted that she wasn't. He hired a guy who doesn't have a degree. That guy has hands-on cabling experience, but that's not what he's doing for us so it's not the most relevant experience. Yet my boss judged this guy to be more qualified. The fact that she was not only a woman but a hispanic woman, and he is a white guy, probably had a lot to do with it.

That's one example of the oppression women face of many that I've seen personally. Nobody can convince me that women aren't descriminated against. I've seen it, complained about it, fought against it, and watched women stuck in low paying dead end jobs because of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. Okay, I was wrong.

An explanation is in order.

Net worth has little to do with income. Wealth can be (in fact usually is) inherited. I'm going to lead you by the hand to the best possible rebuttal of my observation that women control most of the wealth. They do so partly because they live longer and thus inherit it.

I'm not claiming that they earn more. I'm not claiming that they got wealthy because of their high earnings. I'm am stating that demographically, women are richer for other reasons.

[ThomCat]

198. Prove it. Show where the wealthiest people in the world

are disproportionately women. Get a Forbes list of the nations wealthiest people and see whether men or women predominate.

It's men who have the majority of the world's wealth. You keep stating that women control all the wealth as if it's true. It is not true.

Of the world's top billionaires, the first woman on the list is #12. Looking only at the American billionaires, You don't get to a single woman until you get to a Walton at #24.

This idea that women control the wealth is just insane. It's a total delusion. The lists of the wealthiest people in the US or the wealthiest people in the world, have never had more than a few women, and never in the top spots.

So until you can somehow show that women really, truly control all this mysterious wealth you need to put that lie to rest.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

209. I already proved what I said. It's not incumbent on me to prove your flawed interpretation. n/t

[ThomCat]

210. No you didn't. You presented no proof at all.

I presented a link that proves that men own the vast, vast majority of the world's wealth.

You've proven nothing.

[myrna minx]

229. You have *not* proven your assertion.

Ooooo look at all of those women! :eyes:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html
The Top 20 Billionaires
William Gates III
Warren Buffett
Carlos Slim Helú
Ingvar Kamprad
Lakshmi Mittal
Sheldon Adelson
Bernard Arnault
Amancio Ortega
Li Ka-shing
David Thomson
Larry Ellison
Liliane Bettencourt
Prince Alwaleed
Mukesh Ambani
Karl Albrecht
Roman Abramovich
Stefan Persson
Anil Ambani
Paul Allen
Theo Albrecht

[lumberjack_jeff]

236. You're trying to disprove Thom Cat's assertion - not mine.

If nothing else, most of those people aren't american.

[myrna minx]

238. *Sigh*

:crazy: This is hopeless.

[lumberjack_jeff]

239. I'm not going to address anyone's straw man.

You're trying to dispute my observation that most of the privately held wealth in america is controlled by women by putting forward the straw man argument that there are a lot of rich guys in the middle east. I'm sure that this is as true as it is irrelevant.

I'm sorry that you find my unwillingness to bite frustrating.

[myrna minx]

240. The Walton women count as *most*?

On edit-I removed *two* to from the Waltons.

I'm done. You don't make any sense.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=rank

1 Gates, William H III 52.8 United States
2 Buffett, Warren E 35.0 United States
3 Albrecht, Karl & Theo 26.8 Germany
4 Allen, Paul G 25.2 United States
5 Ellison, Lawrence J 23.5 United States
6 Walton, Jim C 20.8 United States
7 Walton, John T 20.7 United States
8 Walton, Alice L 20.5 United States
8 Walton, S Robson 20.5 United States
10 Walton, Helen R 20.4 United States
11 Alsaud, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal 20.0 Saudi Arabia
12 Quandt, Johanna & family 18.4 Germany
13 Bettencourt, Liliane 14.9 France
13 Thomson, Kenneth & family 14.9 Canada
15 Ballmer, Steven A 14.8 United States
16 Kamprad, Ingvar 13.4 Sweden
17 Slim Helu, Carlos 11.5 Mexico
18 Dell, Michael S 11.1 United States
19 Rausing, Kirsten & family 10.7 Sweden
20 Kluge, John W 10.5 United States
21 Anthony, Barbara Cox 10.1 United States
21 Chambers, Anne Cox 10.1 United States
23 Li Ka-shing 10.0 Hong Kong
24 Kwok, Walter, Thomas & Raymond 9.2 Hong Kong
25 Ortega, Amancio 9.1 Spain


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

The 400 Richest Americans
09.21.06, 10:00 AM ET
1 William Henry Gates III 53.0 50 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Edward Buffett 46.0 76 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Sheldon Adelson 20.5 73 Las Vegas, NV casinos, hotels
4 Lawrence Joseph Ellison 19.5 62 Redwood City, CA Oracle
5 Paul Gardner Allen 16.0 53 Seattle, WA Microsoft, investments
6 Jim C Walton 15.7 58 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
7 Christy Walton & family 15.6 51 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart inheritance
7 S Robson Walton 15.6 62 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
9 Michael Dell 15.5 41 Austin, TX Dell
9 Alice L Walton 15.5 57 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart

[lumberjack_jeff]

241. One last time.

I'm not saying that most of the Forbes wealthiest people are women. I'm saying that most of the US wealth is controlled by women.

If you want to rearrange the words to create a sentence to disprove, have at it.

[myrna minx]

243. Well, "you are saying" that most US wealth is controlled by women,

but you haven't *proven* anything. You can make assertions all day, but if you can't back it up with facts, it is just an opinion or a delusion or truthiness. Nice try though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

244. ...

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/13466.asp
http://www.trendpr.com/supports/proteus_mailer.pdf
http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/resources/marketing/market_research/women_power_how_to_market_to_51_of_americans.mspx
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Power-Of-Being-A-Woman&id=7514
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm?chan=search

[myrna minx]

245. From the first article that I read that you linked to....

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm?chan=search
snip
Still, it's hardly as if the world has been equalized: Ninety percent of the world's billionaires are men. Among the super rich, only one woman, Gap Inc. co-founder Doris F. Fisher, made, rather than inherited, her wealth. Men continue to dominate in the highest-paying jobs in such leading-edge industries as engineering, investment banking, and high tech -- the sectors that still power the economy and build the biggest fortunes. And women still face sizable obstacles in the pay gap, the glass ceiling, and the still-Sisyphean struggle to juggle work and child-rearing.

But attaining a decisive educational edge may finally enable females to narrow the earnings gap, punch through more of the glass ceiling, and gain an equal hand in rewriting the rules of corporations, government, and society. "Girls are better able to deliver in terms of what modern society requires of people -- paying attention, abiding by rules, being verbally competent, and dealing with interpersonal relationships in offices," says James Garbarino, a professor of human development at Cornell University and author of Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them.
snip

This article is interesting, but is filled with hypotheses as to why boys are underachieving and extrapolations of what our workforce *may* look like in the future, what women *may* look forward to, hardly proof that woman control the wealth of this nation, nor that woman do not inhabit a sexist world.

See you later. I'm done.

[myrna minx]

246. Both imedia and microsoft articles state the same bullet point line,

even the same wording:
"By 2010, women are expected to control $1 trillion, or 60% of the country's wealth, according to research conducted by BusinessWeek and Gallup."

These are both marketing sites that do not provide links to their sources. In addition, they site extrapolations.

The "trendpr" link froze my computer, so I not return to that site. I'd like to see the gallup and business week research, instead to reading bullet points from marketing sites. BUt I will include a passage from your microsoft marketing site:
Women power: how to market to 51% of Americans
snip
'Stereotyping lives on'
Besides underestimating their financial clout, marketers often see women as just one homogenous group. "Stereotyping lives on," says Mary Lou Quinlan, chief executive of Just Ask a Woman, a New York consulting firm. "Marketers see a 25-year-old woman as upbeat, on the way in her career, going out at night. The reality is she's highly stressed, might not have a job, or be home with three kids. Such marketing stereotypes hold true for women ages 25 to 40," Quinlan says.

On edit: I'm afraid that a few links from marketing & PR sites will not satisfy the burden of proof of your assertion. Do these numbers include the Waltons? Oprah? Is this the mean? We don't know, because they do not elaborate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

250. The primary source is Gallup.

Unfortunately the information is behind a paywall.

Google the phrase and you'll find the Gallup data repeated in dozens of places. Until someone can find something that directly refutes the findings attributed to Gallup and Business Week; "by 2010, 60% of the country's wealth, $1 Trillion, will be controlled by women" then I'll continue to trust it.

Counterintuitive is not the same thing as wrong. Every argument provided against this study/survey/finding boils down to; "it's inconsistent with the prevailing view, so I'll disregard it".

Ironically, the study was developed as a response to the widespread belief that it was prudent for marketeers to ignore women because they're stereotyped as poor and thus powerless about money and spending. "See! We're not powerless! We control most of the money! Ha!... Oh, wait, *cough*, uh, hold on, what I meant to say was..."

Understating the scope and magnitude of female power is a direct manifestation of the patriarchy. Protection is only justified if they're powerless.

[myrna minx]

253. All I found is the same sentence used over and over again on the internets.

The same sentence used over and over again is not fact or data. (See Fox news) Was this a poll? Was it a study? What is this research? What are their methods? We don't know. You go ahead and believe it, if you like, but you have proved nothing. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Again, does this include the Waltons? Oprah? Britney Spears? Is this a mean? You are asking me to prove a negative by directly refuting something that I don't even know exists.

If this were common knowledge or understanding, you would be able to provide data to me, but you have only provided me links to marketing websites and pr sites. Then you have asked me to goggle to refute your "data", a single sentence on the internets, which is silly. I'm logging off.

[Tsiyu]

118. "Victimhood begets entitlement, and no one will willingly give that up".

Okie dokie..

But y'know, I really didn't feel entitled when my tire blew last week and I was alone on the side of the road changing it, worried that some crazy man might try to hurt me on that desolate stretch of road.

I don't feel entitled when I think about that $20,000+ my ex owes me in child support.

I don't feel entitled when I realize that years of being a stay-at-home mom means my retirement is going to be very rough.

It would be much more preferable to be a 48-year-old woman paid a living wage, living in a nation where men don't hurt women and where fathers and mothers live up to their responsibilities and where we provide pensions for parents who raise their own kids.

That kind of entitlement would really work well for me.

[iverglas]

150. "privilege begets power, and no one will willingly give that up"

Who said that?!?

Moi. ;)

Some will willingly give up power, of course. Of course, who are privileged have the capacity, if they have the will, to give up power, while those who are victimized don't have the capacity to do much of anything, no matter how much will they have. Or at least so the ones with the power and privilege hope.

What victimhood actually begets, of course, is misery. And one way to give that up is to hand some of it to its rightful owners. If you can stand the whining and tantrums and incantations they kick up when their gifts are rejected ...

[Tsiyu]

157. It's amazing

how the toughest guys become mealy-mouthed when in the presence of woman-abusers. They don't want to upset the apple cart.

And let's not get started on the laws. How many jurisdictions go light on the abusers, molesters, rapists, pedophiles? Seems you get more time for stealing a car or selling a dime bag of weed than for raping a child.

In a courtroom recently, the judge made all sorts of comments from the bench about the evils of drug use. Course, 99% of the cases were drug-related. But when the two sex offenders came to the bench, there was a sudden speechless quality to the judge. His big, fat mouth stayed resolutely shut. What is there to fear, Judge? Is speaking out against sexual violence that frightening to you?

How many preachers and politicians and police - overwhelmingly male - are abusers? How often do many men allow other men to mistreat women and children? How many American men travel overseas for sex with slaves?

How many preachers have you EVER heard talk about domestic violence? I have never once heard a male give a sermon on the topic.

I have heard lots of vitriole from the pulpit concerning feminists, homosexuals and liberals, however.

I guess abuse just never seems to tie in with the Republican Message of the Week From God...

Kind of all nice and forgotten.

We like it that way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

179. "I don't feel entitled when I think about that $20,000+ my ex owes me in child support."

Okie dokie, indeed.

[Tsiyu]

231. ????

In 1987, he was ordered to pay $50 a week for two kids.

The amount was never raised by any court. Do you think that $50 a week paid for much? It might have helped, if he'd paid more than a year's worth total of support payments.

The 20 grand is a lowball estimate. I will never see it. Then kids are grown now, and believe me, they feel so "entitled" by his entire Repuke family as they struggle to make their way in the world, that they won't even speak to the man or his family.

The last straw for my daughter was when he hit her in the face. Just ask her how "entitled" that made her feel. She'll be happy to tell you.

Ask her how entitlled she felt when she called him about a medical issue and he told her to just get on welfare and medicare.


All sorts of "entitlement" going around here, oh yeah....

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. I was commenting on the irony of the sentence.

I have no reason to believe that you aren't entitled to that child support.

[Tsiyu]

242. My kids were entitled to it

But I supported them instead. Helped them get through a bit of college til we all ran out of money.

It really gave me a sense of entitlement to do so.

The irony IS rich, isn't it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

148. Here's a study on pay gaps that controls for the obvious relevant correlations.

Even after all of those, there's still at least a 5% pay gap that isn't explained away.

http://www.aauw.org/research/behindPayGap.cfm

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. The motives of the AAUW are suspect.

There's as much reason to trust the American Petroleum Institute's research on global warming.

[ThomCat]

199. OMG, You're so right.

We can't trust women to know anything about discrimination against women. We can only listen to men who claim it doesn't exist. :sarcasm:

:wow:

[lumberjack_jeff]

204. I trust the API to know lots about their business.

I just don't trust them to tell me. Particularly not in the complete absence of any truly disinterested researchers.

[ThomCat]

208. Disinterested researchers?

And if you discount an organization of women, then by disinterested researchers you must mean... men?

Is that like saying only white people can research racism?
Or only straight people can research homophobia?

[lumberjack_jeff]

214. Disinterested (v)

"having no stake in the outcome"

The association of university women's purpose is promoting the interests of its membership.

The hypothetical association of university men would... in fact should... be equally biased.

It is possible for male researchers to dispassionately research gender issues, but not if they're operating under the auspices of an organization formed for the purpose of promoting mens' educational and financial interests to the exclusion of all other considerations.

[ThomCat]

216. There is nobody who doesn't have a stake in the outcome.

Everyone is affected by sexism, either by benefiting or by getting penalized, or some of both. So nobody is disinterested.

You can cherry pick the organizations you like. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh has some sources he can site that you might approve of.

I'll trust women who are trained researchers, academics who's work gets peer reviewed, and who probably have first-hand experience to lend passion to their work. They're a hell of a lot more credible than you and your pet theories.

[lumberjack_jeff]

217. I trust women who are trained researchers too.

Those working for an organization like the EEOC might be a reliable source.

It isn't the researchers, it's the organizations agenda.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

223. I think you rather weaken your own case.

"I'll trust women who are trained researchers, academics who's work gets peer reviewed, and who probably have first-hand experience to lend passion to their work."

If it *is* the case that there is any passion lent to this work, then that would be a strong argument to distrust it.

Personal experience is not statistically significant. If it hasn't been discounted, that would be another weakness.

Looking at it, it appears to be reasonably scholarly and dispassionate, but I think the fact that, as you say, the researchers may well have, or believe they have, first hand experience that brings passion to it, is rather Lumberjack_Jeff's complaint, and not one that can be totally dismissed out of hand.

[Horse with no Name]

127. Please cite ALL of your "claims"

Because I don't believe what you say.
I only have time to address one issue and I will take you to task on "Breast cancer research funding is six times that of prostate research funding".
Perhaps there is MORE money spent because there is already a blood test to diagnose, adequate surgical modalities to cure and it has a much better survival rate than breast cancer.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/cancer/5_year.html
Prostate cancer has a 99% 5-year survival rate.
Breast cancer has an 86% 5-year survival rate.

Prostate cancer has a 95% 10-year survival rate.
Breast cancer has a 78% 10-year survival rate.

Do you see where this is going? 99% is ALMOST considered CURED.
1 man out of 100 will die while 14 women will die.

So now justify YOUR argument that MORE money needs to be spent on that ONE man than needs to be spent on FOURTEEN women.

I'll be waiting for you to back up your bullshit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. In 1998, 32,203 men died of prostate cancer

In the same year, 41,736 women died of breast cancer.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5103a1.htm#tab1

The spending ratios I cited are were outdated, from a 1993 book.

Here's what the National Prostate Cancer coalition currently says;
Prostate cancer accounts for more than 16.7% of new cancer cases in the United States, yet only about 7% of federal cancer research dollars have been devoted to beat the disease. Last year, $484.9 million was put toward prostate cancer research, up from $69.2 million in 1994, thanks to aggressive efforts by NPCC.

Also

Prostate cancer accounts for over 32% of all male cancer cases in the United States and 10% of male cancer deaths. Yet, on average, only about 7% of federal cancer research dollars have been devoted to beat the disease.

AIDS research receives more than $2.5 billion in federal dollars. Breast cancer research will receive about $870 million next year. Compare that to $485 million for prostate cancer research.

The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS. It's not that research for other diseases receives too much funding. Prostate cancer receives too little.

http://www.fightprostatecancer.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home#07

This year, the NPCC projects that 27,000 men will die of it.
Imaginis projects that 41,000 women will die this year of Breast Cancer.

Clearly the funding gap has closed markedly but not completely, and the mortality of both cancers, but especially prostate cancer has decreased because of improved treatment since I last researched the topic.

I overstated the magnitude of the disparity with regard to cancer treatment. Mea culpa.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

233. I think the idea that funding per death should be constant is a suspect one.

I would say that one *should* probably be spending more than twice as much money on curing a disease that kills twice as many people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. Agreed

Breast cancer research gets 30% more emphasis per death than prostate cancer.

Am I suggesting that this disparity is inappropriate or unjust? No, not really. 30% is within a reasonable spectrum, especially considering the remarkable improvements that researchers have made with this improved funding during the 90's.

But if it were 30% less emphasis, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing about it.

[jgraz]

139. Here's some more stats

98% of what you just said is complete horseshit.

The other 2% consists of the word "the" and a couple of periods.

[wicket]

153. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

:rofl:

[Terran]

248. Oh yeah...

A REAL strong case. :eyes:

Man, get a freaking clue, will you?

[bobbolink]

122. I think someone's putting us on.

I haven't heard "liberals" speak like that since.... well, maybe the 50's..?

Could it be we got us a diversionary project here?

[ThomCat]

134. Diversion? Possibly. But diversion from what?

I think it's more likely that we have someone who truly doesn't believe sexism exists. If I had to speculate why, based on his posts, it might be because he wants to feel like he's had a tough life because of women. So perhaps he feels he's discriminated against and it's women's fault.

:crazy:

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

172. You may be right.... who knows. That's one head I don't care to wander around in. ^_^

There's a lot of free-floating hate around, and it exists among "liberals", too.

Gotta have a target somewhere, I guess.

I see a whole lot of it, and it's distressing. The only way I can deal anymore is distancing myself.

So, I'm glad this person has "outted" himself.... makes it easier to detour. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

182. If you can find one post which qualifies as hate...

... I'll humbly apologize.

I can find many, but I'm not holding my breath for reciprocity.

[bobbolink]

185. Yes, it's easy to see you're just dripping with love.

Actually, holding your breath could be quite productive.

Thanks for being honest.

Makes it much easier.

Life is much too short, and quite hard enough, so goodbye.

[lumberjack_jeff]

191. Dripping with ambivalence, perhaps. n/t

[ThomCat]

200. No, there's clearly something else there.

You've invested a huge amount of energy into believing that women are unfairly getting something men deserve, without evidence.

There is far more than just ambivalence there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. There you go telling me what I believe again.

My belief is that the patriarchy is a mutually destructive construct.
My belief is that equality won't spring from scorched earth.
My belief is that scorched earth is what is left behind when only one view is articulated.
My belief is that prejudicial statements should not stand unchallenged.

[iverglas]

147. howdy

I hear you're fighting the good fight here ... actually, I saw you doing it, and had even started a post to chime in ... debunking one of the factoids offered by way of showing how easily of them were debunked ... but I figured the rest of you folks could live without me while I got some work done.

The idea that anyone in this day and age doesn't see the oppression women have historically dealt with, and continue to deal with, boggles the mind.

How about the idea that someone knows perfectly well that women are an historically oppressed/exploited group, and that women continue to suffer both exploitation/oppression and the effects of historical oppression/exploitation, and yet makes a career of denying it, factoids to hand? Perhaps because s/he has an interest in women being oppressed/exploited, and an agenda that involves keeping things that way?

If the first idea boggles the mind, the second upsets the stomach. Here, I'm feeling a tad queasy. Not at all boggled, really.

We all have our own feelings about what's worth the effort and what isn't. I generally think that denunciation is almost always worth the effort, for instance, even though it doesn't change minds. Shame might at least get the ugly mind to keep its mouth shut.

But arguing with somebody who doesn't even believe what s/he is saying? Nah. People who deny the exploitation and oppression of other people because it's in their interest for other people to be exploited and oppressed ... that's too ugly for me.

So here's me, not lending a hand. ;) Except to offer some advice: whenever you see someone yammering about how women make up more than half the enrolment at post-secondary schools, or control more than half the wealth, walk the other way. You could demonstrate the meaninglessness of those factoids in the context of the oppression/exploitation of women til you were blue in the face, and they'd be at it again tomorrow morning before you woke up. You're not talking to people who don't get it; you're talking to people who get it and don't give a damn.

Of course, to each his/her own! If I took my own advice, I wouldn't have so much fun in the gun dungeon. ;)

[ThomCat]

168. All good points, and a good suggestion.

:)

I'm not so good at staying quiet though. I try with some of the more obvious trolls, but I usually end up saying something.

[lumberjack_jeff]

180. I feel no reason to be ashamed of my gender.

Nor to feel the need to agree with the prevailing wisdom that I'm responsible for subjugating anyone.

You believe what you do because no one has ever disagreed.

[iverglas]

187. funny, you seem to have replied to my post

I have no idea why.

I feel no reason to be ashamed of my gender.

Good for you. Are you a masculine noun or a feminine noun? Did someone suggest you should be ashamed of your gender ... or your sex, for that matter?

Nor to feel the need to agree with the prevailing wisdom that I'm responsible for subjugating anyone.

You must live in a funny place, if that's the prevailing wisdom where you live. Have you considered moving?

You believe what you do because no one has ever disagreed.

Oh dear, silly me, that had never occurred to me. I doubt that it occurred to any of the people who have disagreed with me over the last few decades, either. Of course, on matters such as these, since they no more disagreed with me than you do, maybe you're right about that part. I'm still not clear on the causal connection you're making here ... but what they hell, I'm sure you're right. Even if you know you're not.

[ThomCat]

188. No one has ever disagreed?

:rofl:

What drugs are you on?

Any woman who speaks up about discrimination is usually shouted down pretty quickly. It's almost a sport with a lot of guys.

Any woman who hasn't heard guys disagree with her simply hasn't opened her mouth yet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

190. You *have* read this thread, have you not? n/t

[ThomCat]

201. Yes. Have you?

If you're correct that all these women believe they are discriminated against solely because nobody ever told them they're not, then your posts should have miraculously enlightened a lot of people.

Except your posts won't enlighten anyone because they're totally off the wall and delusional.

[wicket]

91. Women are not oppressed?

What delusional fantasty world are you living and where do I sign up?

[lumberjack_jeff]

184. Women are not a minority.

The patriarchal system works to oppress both genders, in equally damaging ways.

[wicket]

195. Not a minority in numbers, but in terms power, women most definitely are

The patriarchal system works to oppress both genders, in equally damaging ways.

You *really* need to get acquainted with what patriarchy means.

[ThomCat]

202. Yes, he seriously does.

[malta blue]

94. If you feel that women are not oppressed, then why

do men insist on knowing what happens in our uterus?

You have got to be kidding me!:puke:

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Ann Coulter is a man? Who knew? n/t

[malta blue]

98. Ann Coulter? You are going to use Ann Coulter?

I've read your posts and clearly you are not going to accept that women are oppressed in much of western society, and more hypocritically in the United States than in any other nation. The oppression of women is rooted in the transition from a pre-class society to a class based society. With newer divisions of labor, human beings became valuable property, and WOMEN because of their biological role in reproduction, became quite a commidity - a commodity that needed to be controlled.

I do agree with your point that people should not generalize about this sort of issue, however, as I stated above, when those middle-aged white men and the women they subjugate leave my uterus alone, then there will be an end to the oppression.

As long as someone who does not have a uterus wants to tell me what I can and can't do with it, I am an oppressed woman.

As long as women who are subjugated by their male counterparts (and thereby oppressed) continue to spew the rhetoric of the "holy" then I am oppressed.

As long as I earn less money for doing the same job as my co-worker, then I am oppressed.

As long as I have to live in a world where women with fake breasts, injected lips and surgically altered bodies are considered the standard for beauty, I am oppressed.

As long as someone views me as an object, I am oppressed.

Enough said.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

100. Agree with your post generally. But...

"As long as I have to live in a world where women with fake breasts, injected lips and surgically altered bodies are considered the standard for beauty, I am oppressed.

As long as someone views me as an object, I am oppressed."

I don't think that is the standard for beauty. Maybe it is in America. But in other parts of the world, it is not.

If the standard for manly beauty were Brad Pitt looks, is Tucker Carlson oppressed for looking as he does?

If I view Philip Roth as an object, is he oppressed?

Seems like an odd conception of "oppression."

Also, what if people with a uterus decide you can't have an abortion?

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. In my primary point, we are in agreement.

I don't quietly tolerate all-encompassing generalities about either gender.

As long as my kids have less access to education than their female peers, they are oppressed.
A glass basement, like a glass ceiling exists. I've met few garbagewomen. I've met few female roofers. I've met few commercial fisherwomen. As long as my kids have fewer career options, (only the dangerous ones) they are oppressed.
As long as they are seen first and foremost not as humans, but as potential rapists, they are oppressed.
As long as society is content that they'll die 10% sooner than their female peers, they are oppressed.
As long as they live in a world in which the unattainable ideal is that of powerful, (yet sensitive) intelligent (yet passionate), gentle (yet ever vigilant protector), and able to provide financial security, (but not being so crass as to expect financial security from their spouses in return), they are oppressed.

Why not speak in the first person? Because I am not oppressed. I am not a victim, and I do not feel any of the entitlement which that entails. I'm happy and fortunate to be a stay at home parent. I know what most men are missing.

Both genders are oppressed by the patriarchy. I won't pick and choose which parts of this outmoded system should be discarded.

[EFerrari]

130. You are joking, right?

You forgot the sarcasm tag, right? :wow:

[Forkboy]

149. Now there's a WTF? statement if I ever saw one.

Even after reading your replies it's still a WTF? statement.

Hell,so are your replies.

I mean really.... :wtf:

[LWolf]

158. Minority may not be the best term.

Many human subgroups suffer discrimination: ethnicity, race, education, culture, social class, belief system, gender, sexual preference, weight, physical conformation...the list is long.

Discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, whatever you want to call it, isn't based on numbers, it's based on power. The determination to take the power for you and yours, away from "others." Those other than you and yours. Whether it is economic power, political power, religious power...

Why is the need to hold the power within "our group," "us," so strong? Is there some encoded biological factor that urges us to compete with those not "us?"

Whatever it is, fear of those who are different from "us" drives the determination to hold the power.

When too much of the economic and political power (and, in the circles of my life, religious power), is held by males, then it doesn't matter that there may be just as many women. We hold a minority of the power.

[lumberjack_jeff]

181. Many human subgroups do indeed suffer discrimination.

But none of the examples you provided are majorities in their respective cultures

... with the possible exception of the "war on christians".

[LWolf]

247. When you classify a group as a minority,

are you classifying population numbers or power held? If "minority" means the group with a smaller population than the "majority," then that is correct. If "minority" refers to the group that holds a minority of power, then population numbers aren't relevant.

I think "minority" can be legitimately classified either way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

251. If one is to make that leap,

Then it's at least necessary to define "power".

One measure is education
another good measure is wealth.
A somewhat less-good measure is income.

Women get most of the first, control most of the second, but lag behind in the third.

[LWolf]

255. Do women get most of the education these days?

I haven't kept up. It's true that in my family women are more educated than men. My father had an 8th grade education, and my mom finished high school. I was the first to get a college degree.

Coming from the working class, I'm also the only person in my peer group growing up to attend college. More of the girls finished high school than the boys; they tended to drop out jr or sr year for the military or a construction job or the family business.

I guess, in that small chunk, the women had more education. They sure didn't control the wealth, or have the income, though.

How do women "control the wealth?"

[lumberjack_jeff]

256. You may want to read the rest ot the thread.

Gallup commissioned a market research study for Business Week and found that "By 2010 women will control 60% of the privately-held wealth in the US". This finding meets with a great deal of controversy and disbelief here on DU. Also, 3 out of 5 college students are women, and anecdotally the prospects for boys growing up today are poor. The reaction to that fact here can generally be paraphrased as "good".

At risk of understatement, despite being correct I am in the minority viewpoint.

Unlike wealth, studies about income are widely-available and common. They range from a recent study which shows that young females in urban centers get paid more than their male peers to other older studies which indicate that women make 2/3 of what a man makes. Does the truth lie somewhere in between? I don't know, but I suspect there's a lag between the reality on the street finding its way to the newspaper. It is reasonable to give greater credence to the newer studies.

[FourScore]

165. Wow. This is unbelievable.

Let's put stats and facts aside for a moment, especially since they are being thrown around with such carelessness.

Allow me to speak as a woman:

***Should I tell you about the time that a motorcycle repair shop charged me $293.00 in parts and labor to replace my accelerator cable? When I balked at their claim that it took them 3 hours to complete, I was told by one of three burly men behind the counter that a woman shouldn't drive a motorcycle anyway. The other customers at the counter (all male) laughed at this exchange, until one of them said, "Lady, why don't you just pay it, and get the hell out of here."

***Have you ever flown a kite with your sister on a quiet beach, to have two men come up and grab you and start rubbing your crotch? Do you know that terror?

***Have you been promised a promotion, only to have a man outside your firm with less qualification get hired because otherwise you would be the first woman to hold such a high and powerful position in the company? Only under the threat of a lawsuit was the situation rectified?

***Have you ever been pulled over by a policeman because he thought you were so pretty he wanted to ask you out on a date. When you declined he gave you a speeding ticket for going 6 miles over the speed limit, except he claimed you were going 20 miles over so that the ticket would cost more?

***Have you ever worked for a military attache office on foreign soil as a civilian and a woman? Imagine your boss is a high-ranking Commanding officer of the Navy. You are his translator and one of 3 assistants. The other two assistants consist of a male Petty Officer and another female high-ranking government employee, one who actually out-ranks the Petty Officer. The Commander has two doors to his office: there is the formal, main entrance into his office AND a door which gives him direct access to the office of his 3 assistants. His Petty Officer (the male) is allowed to use the direct access door. The two females must walk through a maze of 8 other offices in order to go to the main formal entrance, knock on the door before entering, and get permission to enter, even though the Commanding Officer fully expected you to report to him. Often he would stand in the direct access door, but would refuse to take any material from you while standing there. He would merely give you a haughty look and point in the direction for you to start walking. The explanation for this was for security reasons. Since the Petty Officer was in the Navy and we were mere government employees, the Commander had no need to worry about security concerns regarding him. Of course we knew better. That claim REALLY unraveld though when a 3rd government emplyee was hired and happened to be male. HE was allowed to use the direct access door as well. The reason given: he out-ranked BOTH women. Two weeks later, however, one of the women is given a large promotion from Washington, thus suddenly out-ranking the new guy. When she asks if she can now use the direct access door, the commanding officer "rewarded her" instead with a cubicle amongst foreign secretaries, thus preventing this woman from carrying out her duties with her top secret clearance. He completely...how shall we say it?...castrated her (does that work?) abilities to perform her job properly. When a formal complaint was filed by "moi", I lost my job.

I can go on and on and on.

I don't need statistics. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Madspirit]

167. FANTASTIC POST!!

The ones pushing their opinions that women are not discriminated against and abused and thrashed and shit on...I have no more words. I just can't believe they are even at a progressive site instead of ..oh..."Bubbas 'R Us" or something.

Your post is wonderful. Thank-you.

Lee

[FourScore]

175. "Bubbas 'R Us"

ROFLMAO!!!!!

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

171. That's a very strong post. I'm glad you're okay sharing that.

Clueless people need to know that this stuff happens, that it's common, and that it is devastating to the lives and careers of the people it happens to.

Thank you.

[FourScore]

176. There are always the other men

who see the discrimination and are just as angered by it. They give us all hope.

I thank you, ThomCat.

[wicket]

227. Wow....

:yourock:

:hug:

[jgraz]

113. It appears you're saying that all forms of prejudice are equivalent

In that case, you are somewhat unique in your view. And for good reason. :crazy:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

114. Is there some "mitigating factor" that allows a person to be an asshole....

....to another human being based on race simply because their race has taken more shit over the years?

Fuck, it would be nice to get past this mentality around here that you're supposed to turn the other cheek depending on who's being the prick.

[jgraz]

120. I think you need a few more loaded terms in that question

:eyes:

Let's try another example without race in the picture. Suppose I make fun of you because you're overweight. I call you "fatso" and "tubby" and generally laugh at you because of your physique. You respond by making fun of the fact that I'm really tall, calling me "stretch" and "beanpole". In this case, who is being more hurtful?

"What?" you say, "that's an unfair example! You started namecalling first!" To which I respond, "Exactly."

"Plus," you protest, "Calling someone fat is a lot more hurtful than making fun of their height!" And I say, "Why do you think that is?"

Are you starting to get the picture?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

131. I care less about the insult and more about intent

What are the reasons for attacking someone, verbally, physically, mentally?

While I agree there is no insult that compares to the "N-word", there is nothing worse than getting beaten with a baseball bat or a lead pipe. Will you go so far as to say that the prejudice "isn't equivilant" based on who's swinging that pipe?

The essay is great for a lesson on the use of racial insults in our society. It doesn't address the fact that there are plenty of ways to hate aside from use of language.

Again, intent.......

My overall point is this:

If you are a white person who hates black people on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are a black person who hates white people on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are a man who hates women on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are a women who hates men on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are an Asian who hates Hispanics and black people on "general prinicple", you are an asshole.

If you are a Hispanic who hates Asian and black people on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are a straight person who hates gays on "general principle", you are an asshole.

If you are a gay person who hates straight people on "general principle", you are an asshole.

Sorry if that's not sensitive enough to the plight of some who feel entitled to be assholes, but it is what it is.

[jgraz]

138. So the answer is...

no, you're not starting to get the picture.

Oh well, I tried. :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. You mean, there's bad predjudice and good predjudice? n/t

[jgraz]

213. Yes, that's exactly what I said

Check back when you pass that third-grade reading test, huh?

[lumberjack_jeff]

252. Intriguing. Thanks for sharing that.

This attitude would fit in nicely in with Serbs, with the Janjaweed or Tutsis.

They all have their "good predjudices" too.

[Katherine Brengle]

48. One more thing - did you actually read the entire OP?

Because the "two way street" was the topic of the entire article.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. The entire article was about race relations.

The original poster is attempting to draw a gender analogy to the article. But it fundamentally falls apart because misogyny and misandry (collectively, sexism) aren't perpetrated by a majority group against a powerless minority.

I don't disagree with the article, I do disagree with the gender spin that is being placed on it.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. You're so close to your predjudices, that you can't even see it.

I'll make this plain. You should not presume yourself competent to speak on behalf what men think. You are ignorant in that regard.

Misogyny is not "perpetrated by one half of the population" any more than misandry is perpetrated by the other half. Notwithstanding this conversation, just as misogyny is not a universally held male view, misandry is not a universally held female view.

Don't project. Not everyone is a sexist.

[ThomCat]

102. By your own logic

you are incompetent in regard to what women experience. Just because you are incapable of seeing sexism doesn't mean it isn't there. Your incompetence is staggering.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. I AM ignorant about what women, as a group, think. That is why I don't speculate.

While you're staggering around, I hope you bump into some demographic data. It suggests that the male-as-oppressor meme is overstated. If nothing else, it's good for your own self-image.

[BlackVelvet04]

160. Since the

inception of this country the white male has reigned supreme. They have used their authority to oppress and discriminate against virtually every minority....Blacks, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Catholics, Mexicans, women, homosexuals, etc. etc. etc. The time has come when that power, that all encompassing control is slipping away and I think it scares the hell out of them.

[Madspirit]

31. He Was Gay

Straight White Males...

Racism isn't just a few psychotics. Please, you know better than that.

Sexism isn't just a few psychotics.

Homophobia isn't just a few psychotics. (Or I would be married to the woman I have spent 15 years with...)

Give me a break.

Lee

[Madspirit]

18. Let me know when you're the FIRST person accused of any convenient crime...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

19. Sweetie, I told you not to get all torn up when this happened....

It's just the way it is. Sucks.

[Madspirit]

21. I know Bloo but now Lerky is gone too...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

25. He/she'll be back. They all come back. :)

[hfojvt]

42. some things will never change

ah, but don't you believe them.

It sucks when people don't just say 'ditto'?

[Katherine Brengle]

29. read. the. original. post. in. its. entirety.

I know it's long and all, but you just put your foot in your mouth with that post.

You came off as ignorant and reactionary because you didn't take the time to understand the message before responding.

[hfojvt]

38. read it for the 3rd time

what did I miss?

Whites are still selling and still lynching blacks? Team mascots are insulting? All those poor white inherited houses?

[Katherine Brengle]

47. Ignored.

[Beerboy]

72. I know I'm asking a lot,

but how do you, as a white person know for sure you didn't own one of my ancestors? And even if you can deny a hand in slavery, there is no denying that White America set-up their beloved Constitution to exclude blacks that fought harder than anyone to see if America places all equally before the laws.
White people have abused the Constitution for far too long, they seem to have a myopic and racist view of who shall be enfranchised citizens, or not.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

112. My ancestors weren't even here when they wrote the Constitution

They were starving in Ireland. When they finally got over here, they were told "No Irish need apply".

There's plenty of bigotry to go around. Some people have a myopic view of who's been victimized in the nation's history.

[ThomCat]

136. Irish people were allowed to assimilate, and are now considered

white. As white people, the Irish get all the benefits that our racist society gives to white people.

It doesn't matter if your family benefitted from slavery way back when. Your family benefits from racism now. It's called White Privilege, and it's the entire package of benefits and advantages you are given simply from being white. You don't need to ask for them. You don't need to pay attention to them. You don't even have to know that you're getting them. But you do get them.

Poor white people get fewer of them than rich white people.
White women get fewer of them than white men.
But all white people benefit from white privilege to some extent.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. Can you detail what these privileges are?

I want to be sure I'm getting my full compliment of them.

I got stopped for speeding last month which doesn't sound right, and there are some African Americans down the street who have a nicer house and a better car than me. Doesn't seem right based on what you are telling me. :sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

144. Sure, since you asked so nicely.

1. If you get pulled over while driving, you can be reasonably sure there was a reason for it other than just the color of your skin.

2. If you move into a neighborhood your new neighbors won't assume that your presence lowers their property values, or blame you if their property value falls.

3. Your kids can expect to get more attention from teachers in schools.

4. Your kids can expect to do better on multiple choice exams because there is a documented cultural bias on such exams, and they predominantly represent white middle class culture.

5. If you submit a resume for a job, you are more likely to be called for an interview if you have a "white sounding name."

6. If you interview for a job, you will gererally get a higher evaluation for professionalism and qualification simply by being white.

7. You can walk through a store and rarely be followed around by security people. You will probably never be asked if you have enough money to shop there.

8. If you go to college, people are unlikely to think you got there solely because of your race. They will generally assume you are smart enough to have earned your place in college.

9. If you get a good job or a promotion people are unlikely to thing you got it because of your race. They will generally assume you earned your position.

10. If you get arrested it only reflects poorly on you. People will not think your actions reflect upon people of your race.

11. If you need public assistance people will usually assume that you are experiencing a difficult period. They probably won't wonder whether generations of your family live on public assistance.

12. If you ask to speak to someone in a position of authority, it will almost always be someone of your race. On the other hand, the people doing the most menial work are disproportionately not people of your race.

13. There are no powerful slurs that are used against your race, and you don't face slurs from strangers as a means of belittling you and all people like you.

14. If you have a criminal record, your earning potention is still generally higher that someone of another race who was never convicted of a crime.

15. If you are convicted of a crime can expect to be treated fairly by the criminal justice system. People of your race tend to get fewer convictions and shorter sentences than people of other races for the same crimes.

I could on quite a bit more. But the point should be obvious at this point. Racism disadvantages black people in a vast number of small ways, and many large ways. You don't automatically experience those disadvatages simply because of your race. Just being treated fairly, and being treated as an individual is frequently a privilage of being white.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

145. What about those little boxes at the bottom of the application asking if I'm white/black/hispanic

....Pacific Islander/Native American......

I should check white, right?

[BlooInBloo]

2. White folks will never accept it... They LIKE being the sole arbiters of all things racial...

... what's racist, what's not, what's oversensitive, what's not, and ESPECIALLY what's reverse *-ism.

To them, it's a zero-sum game - to make room for other races means to give up the space they've already taken. The concept of making the room bigger isn't on their radar.

I applaud your efforts - just don't be too torn up when it goes down in flames.

:)

Exellent post btw! k&r!

[Madspirit]

4. I love BlooInBloo...n/t

[BlooInBloo]

11. I wish they had that skit/espisode of SNL on youtube - it's hilarious!

[tjwash]

20. google video has it...

Link to it here.

I forgot how hilarious it was...

[BlooInBloo]

22. AWESOME!!! THANKS!!!! That's a keeper. It's not a big-star, but it's arguably....

... funnier than the Chase/Pryor interview skit.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Oh fuck. That's not the Garrett Morris skit. Sigh.

My bad - I shoulda been clear.

The thrill of victory... The agony of defeat. :(

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I don't think that is the case.

While no one group defines what is or isn't racist etc, the groups whose definitions of those terms are most influential are largely (heavily non-white) anti-racism activists.

To pick one example, the body which probably has more influence over thinking about racial issues than any other here in the UK is the CRE, of which half of the 14 commissioners are white and half aren't.

[nofurylike]

67. well said, BlooInBloo. n/t

[slowry]

141. Tell me more about white people. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

143. They can't dance or jump

According to Phil Collins and Woody Harrelson.

[myrna minx]

230. Thank you for putting into words what I wished I could express.

Great post. :hi:

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. You may be interested in Tim Wise's book "White Like Me".

Nothing but common sense to the eyes of this former southern boy.

[Madspirit]

9. I Love Tim Wise

...and thank-you for getting it...
Lee *a Texas Woman*

[Gold Metal Flake]

44. Houstonian here.

Whenever I have heard people use the term "reverse racism", as in to complain about it or complain about the possibility that it might exist in some fashion, it is almost always uttered by a racist. A few people are unthinking, and repeat the complaints they hear from racists, and those people might not be truely racists, but rather just lazy in thought. A few questions will quickly reveal the character of the complainer, since if you scratch the surface of a "calm" racist, you find a vein of molten hate like an active lava tube. Sometimes all you gatta do is not say anything. The hater will soon fill the silence with their "testimony". When you are caucasion, racists just assume it's OK to reveal their inner selves.








Hey, what good is having all that cool hatred if you can't show it off once in a while? That's one of the virtues of the modern conservative movement, right?

Rosalyn Carter has been quoted as saying, or remarking about Ronald Reagan, “He makes us comfortable with our prejudices.”

[nofurylike]

71. absolutely. well said. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

6. Power and dominance

Or perhaps the Master/slave dialectic. It all adds up. I can't "walk a mile" in say, a black women's shoes, because I will never, ever be a black woman. I'm white, and I always have been. What I can do, I listen, try to understand, read, speak up, ASK before I assume. I use old fashioned words and concepts such as courtesy to help me along, leaving that wretched "PC" term in the refuse. I try to recognize the negative and destructive "isms" I have even when, or especially when, I don't think they are there.

I think this is a great post and I agree whole-heartedly.

[knitter4democracy]

8. Great post.

I would argue that poor whites are demonized ("trailer trash" and "redneck" come to mind) as dangerous, lazy, and to be avoided, but other than that, I would agree with all of it.

[eridani]

35. Those are class insults, not racial ones.

Of course the c-word is unmentionable, unless rethugs use it to foam at the mouth about minimum wage advocates declaring "class war" on their bosses.

[knitter4democracy]

83. Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

It's definitely more about class than race. Same with "ghetto," from the descriptions my students gave me when I used to teach. That was an interesting day . . .

[annabanana]

10. Exellent post.

It is the same dynamic in humor. Power based jokes at the expense of someone weaker just isn't funny. "Aw c'mon, can't you take a joke. . " is one of the weakest refrains.

[gollygee]

24. Fabulous - K&R

:D

[TroglodyteScholar]

26. Excellent post...recommended.

The slur words for whites definitely have little or no power relative to slurs used by whites. I've always believe that, and your post sums it all up quite nicely.

Where I live, the racist blacks get around it by becoming cops and beating up white folks. They killed a guy in the holding cell a few weeks ago. Big investigation underway.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. F*ing brilliant. "Objectification works against the disempowered because they are disempowered."

This is missed in ALL discussions of the various -isms.

If you have all the power, you are the only one who can wield that power.

[scarletwoman]

28. Brava! Brava! Thank you for posting this!

In all my years of being on DU, one thing that has consistantly blown my mind is how few DUer's understand the power equation in regard to "isms".

I heartily agree with Tim Wise, whose writings I was digesting well before I ever found DU, and I really appreciate you bringing his work here. (I suspect I must have missed some other thread that resulted in your bringing this particular piece forward for our edification today.)

Several years back (I've been here since fall of 2001) I posted Tim Wise's 2 brilliant articles on "White Privilege" here -- he had first written one excellent analysis, and then in response to all the (predictable) howls and freak-outs, he wrote an equally incisive follow-up.

I was amazed/shocked/bitterly disappointed at the number of people who JUST-DID-NOT-GET-IT. And who had absolutely no INTENTION of "getting it", if it meant having to re-examine their cherished assumptions.

Right then and there I realized that for all the pious "liberalism" proclaimed by DU members, there is a hard core of stubborn self-protection that simply will not be moved by any argument that challenges their deeply held, yet unexamined white-privileged worldview.

The White -- and MALE -- privilege worldview is their default "normal". They simply cannot conceive of, or digest, or accept, that their "normal" is a result of their complete enculturation in the dominant white/Western/patriarchal paradigm. Like a fish who cannot conceive of "water", their immersion is so complete as to render their biases utterly invisible to them.

Thank you again for stirring the water -- well done!

sw

[nofurylike]

68. "render their biases utterly invisible to them." well said. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. I fundamentally disagree.

There are, I think, (at least) two obvious counter arguments: one long and one short.


The long one is that the underlying assumption of the OP is that non-white racism is harmless because non-whites don't have any power over whites.

This is not the case - while it's true that the reverse situation is far commoner in the US, it's certainly not the case that there aren't many areas, and many walks of life, where a group other than whites is the dominant one.

In these situations, non-white racism is just as harmful as white racism is elsewhere.


The short counter-argument is that this guy is trying to excuse racism. He is therefore wrong, QED, as far as I am concerned.

[Katherine Brengle]

34. I think we can safely say that he was talking mostly about this country.

[eridani]

36. Well, Japanese people can be racist, but only if they are in Japan

--as Okinawans and Koreans well know. They don't have the institutional power to be racist here, whatever their personal opinions of "round-eyes" are.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

41. A Japanese person in California can't be racist?

That's ridiculous.

Can white American males be racist in Japan? If the KKK took a vacation to Japan, they'd cease to be racists?

[eridani]

61. In Japan, they'd have no social or political power to act on their racism n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

77. So if the KKK ran around

shouting racial slurs at every Japanese person they saw, getting in fights solely on the basis of race, killing Japanese people, and so on, they would not be engaging in racism simply because they were not in the US?

You have a very bad conception of "racism." Racism can be institutional; it need not be.

[eridani]

169. They'd be clapped into jail really fast

They'd do it exactly once, if at all. That's what happens when all the cops are Japanese.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

192. Even if that did happen, their actions would still be still racist;

Being punished for such actions doesn't make them any less racist.

[eridani]

218. If they have no power to enforce their racism, they can be as racist as they like, IMO

No one with prejudice against Japanese people has anything resembling power to have any effect on the lives of people living in Japan whatsoever.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

224. Two things.

Your initial claim regarded institutional power. If the claim is merely that one must have some form of power, then that can be true of anyone. If a poor, weak Mexican is teased relentlessly by a Korean-American for being a nerd, and as a result, without seeing anyone else act in a racist manner towards Koreans, develops racist attitudes about Koreans, takes a knife from his kitchen, and kills this Korean shouting terrible things about Koreans as he does this terrible deed. And he keeps these attitudes the rest of his life, blaming all of the world's problems on Koreans.

That person would be a racist.

And even that person has some power. Anyone can have that much power.

But even if someone couldn't act on their racist beliefs, even if they didn't have any power, not even the power to speak, that doesn't make them any less racist.

[eridani]

225. People can be assholes and sociopaths for any reason whatsoever

Racism is still an institutional phenomenon, which structures status and opportunities and the world-view of every member--those things that "everybody knows."

There were some studies at Stanford in the 70s in which groups of students were asked to grade essays. All of them were rated a full letter grade higher when the author had a male name, even the one about child care, ferchrissakes. It was most likely the case that the students' self-stated opinions on sexism would have been something like "What century is this, anyway?"

It isn't easy to ask someone to stop doing something when a) they don't know they are doing it and b) you don't know for sure whether they are doing it.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

226. No.

What you are describing is institutional racism. There are other forms of racism.

When a Korean-American murders another human being solely on the basis of her race, he isn't just an asshole or a sociopath; he's a racist.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[eridani]

62. That affects people they regard as inferior in their own countries.

If they live here, they don't have the institutional power to actually make the people they don't like suffer in any way.

[BlooInBloo]

63. (shrug) I'm just reporting how they commonly view other races.

[eridani]

64. I know that. But the OP was about how institutional power marks the difference between racism--

--and prejudice.

Bigotry toward certain groups + the power to make your opinions into social policy = racism.

Japanese are missing the middle part of the equation unless they actually live in Japan.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

79. He's redifining racism to get to the conclusion he wants.

Bigotry toward certain groups = racism

Often racism is institutional. But it doesn't have to be.

[eridani]

174. When it isn't institutional, it has no real power n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

232. Absolutely not true. The problem is racism, not institutional racism.

Even a single individual can cause a very great deal of racially-motivated suffering, even to a complete stranger.

The problem is racism, not just institutional racism.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

78. Such a simplistic, knee-jerk view

Whites are not the only people in the US with institutional power, especially in certain parts of the country.

But even if that were true, it wouldn't follow that a Korean couldn't be racist against a Mexican.

Absurd.

[eridani]

173. A few minor pockets of non-white politicians don't count.

Koreans can be bigoted against Mexicans, but they aren't the ones redlining whole neighborhoods either.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

196. So..

If a Korean-American taunts an African-American girl with racial slurs and kills her, this Korean wasn't a racist?

If her family castigated this Korean as a murderous racist, you would say, "Sorry. Yes, he was a murderer. But he was NOT a racist. We cannot call him a racist. You have to have institutional power to be a racist!"

However rare, an action like this is still an example of racism.

[eridani]

219. Only because it's backed up by a mostly white power structure n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Umm...

I'm pretty sure the statement "Asians in general are vehemently racist against non-asians" is racist in and of itself.

[scarletwoman]

39. "this guy is trying to excuse racism"!?! Way to totally miss the point of the article!

If you can read the article in the OP -- and I mean really READ AND THINK about what Tim Wise's article has to say -- and come away with the notion that he's "excusing racism", then all I can say is... well, I don't really want to say it because I don't want to come off as attacking you.

But I am utterly amazed -- and not in a good way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. No, that's exactly the point of the article; it's just obfuscated.

The objective of the article is to make the reader believe that only white racism counts. If the author came out and said that in as many words, he would quite rightly be run out of town, so instead he tries to manipulate readers into thinking that while retaining plausible deniability.

I do not approve of this.

Racism is racism is racism, is always wrong, and should always be condemned.

[scarletwoman]

53. No. Power and domination is the point. You're not getting it. (nt)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Power is not a prerequisite of racism.

The only reason some people claim that it is is to try and avoid being forced to confront non-white racism.

Even if you lock a Klansman in a small box, he's still a racist.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

80. Exactly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. I think there's a third.

Extrapolating the author's arguments to gender relations is flawed because unlike race, women are not a minority group.

I actually don't disagree with the authors views on race relations. I do disagree with the OP's intent to extrapolate.

[Katherine Brengle]

46. Women are not a population-minority. We ARE a power-minority.

And have been for some time.

[BlooInBloo]

87. And the former is just *one* way of bringing about the latter. Not the *only* way.

[superkia]

50. I think I agree with you? maybe?

I was jumped by 7 black kids that were in the 8th grade and allot bigger than me,when I was in 6th grade, all 5 foot 3 inches, 105 pounds of me,after being used as a punching bag and taking my ass kicking, I walked my ass to the principals office. Our principle happened to be a black woman, I told her what happened, she called them in and one after another, they told her the tiny skinny kid walked into the gym locker room by himself and started yelling nigger over and over again, so they beat the shit out of me. She then came back to me and told me not to ever use that word again and get back to class. I voiced my opinion to her and told her if she was going to do nothing I was going home, I didn't feel safe in her school. I walked home, called an older cousin and walked back to school to settle the score. As soon as a teacher saw me back at school, they escorted me out and said I was to come back with my parents the next day because I was facing suspension? If it wasn't for the fact that my mother knew of someone on the board of education, I would have been suspended for getting my ass kicked. The guy from the board of education came in and the boys admitted to what they did so I got in no trouble but then neither did they. Nothing was done, I was told to be happy I wasn't suspended and to drop it.

Now I agree there is still a huge problem with racism towards black people and I would never want to live in those shoes, but I do believe when any race has the power in their situation, they also can be racist.

[mvd]

99. Well..

I will say that whites are sometimes in primarily black or minority workplaces and schools. A slur could hurt pretty badly in these cases, especially if a white person lives in a primarily black or minority area. There was a new study that said that in 1 out of 10 counties, whites are now the minority. But the fact is that most of the time, it's still the other way around. In general, a slur against white people can't have the impact that a slur against black people have. Disliking anyone because of their race is wrong, but when it comes to slurs, I think the OP makes a good point.

[treestar]

43. It exists, it just has a lesser or different effect

I had a black roommate in college and another black friend. The friend had a lot of friends. Roommate criticized her fellow black for having so many white friends.

I thought logically a black person could have plenty of white friends, and since whites are more numerous., maybe even more white friends than black.

Everyone has a streak of racism. It is just that black racism as such probably doesn't hurt the whites as much as the reverse can, because of the history.

Then you can get into black racism against hispanics and vice versa.

If anything, the victim classes are more likely to bind to each other based on the racism that affects them negatively. White culture is very individualistic, in fact, that is exactly what white supremacists whine about - that whites don't stick by their race enough, or consider it very important. (Since they are insanely claiming to be the victims on the issue).

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

115. Again, wish I could K&R posts within a thread

Right on.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Good essay.

I think I have actually posted this before. It was awhile back. But it is good to see it re-emerge.

[Sparkly]

56. I've said similar things about sexism...

I think there's a too-easy argument about sexism, which goes something like: "Would you say that if it had been a (man)(woman)?" Or, "if the roles were reversed?"

In some cases that works; in others, it doesn't -- because the roles often CAN'T be neatly reversed. There IS built-in inequality in matters of culture and experience. If all things were fair and equal, fine -- but the fact is, they aren't. And until they are, simple reversals as tests of fairness or validity don't always apply.

[DarkTirade]

58. This article does make a decent point...

discrimination can only really work in the direction of more to less power.
However, within certain microcosms, you have to remember that sometimes what and who are powerful as a whole are not always the same as it is in the larger picture. You will find a business run by someone who is part of a minority, where the few white males working there might be discriminated against. (Or in the one case in my personal experience, it was a hispanic man running the company, and the one white guy, my stepdad, and the one black guy who worked there were both discriminated against in favor of other hispanics.) You may find a place where there are more women than men. You may find a place where there are more gays than straights. And to a small extent, in those places you will find the so-called 'reverse racism'. So keep your eyes, and mind open. Every situation is different. And not every situation mirrors the big picture.
Discrimination is bad, and it happens along the flow of power. But the flow of power isn't the same in every time and place. In the middle there may be a strong one-directional flow, but there are also going to be eddies and currents that run along the banks.

[FourScore]

60. Wow. Perfectly articulated.

Thanks for posting this, Madspirit!

K&R

:hi:

[LostInAnomie]

65. Sounds like a myopic attempt to trivialize racism by non-whites to me.

Racism is racism, no matter what skin color it's wrapped in.

If it is wrong for a white person to discriminate based on race, the same applies to other races. The apologetics about power structures doesn't make bigotry any less disgusting.

[nofurylike]

66. great article, and discussion, Madspirit. thank you, posting!

absolutely!: "it just isn’t the same."


peace and solidarity

[nofurylike]

69. k & r too. n/t

[Beerboy]

70. Yeah, I saw that about 6 months ago.

Mr. Wise oughtta wise up. He's a laughable clown, at least all the black people laugh at him. What an idiot, he knows less than nothing.

[slowry]

73. It's fun to pretend to be on higher ground, but this essay is a flippin' mess. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

74. People who complain about reverse racism have no idea what racism is.

Most important line in the article is the very definition of racism--the relationship of those who hold the most power to those who hold the least:

When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don’t get to define the terms of your existence, they can’t limit your opportunities, and you needn’t worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it’s going to go.

[Gelliebeans]

75. Agree with you

[IndianaJones]

85. only those that hold power can engage in -ism's. nt.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

105. Power over whom?

If a Korean-American teacher tells her 8th grade class that all men are terrible human beings and screams racial insults against a Mexican student in her class, and then goes on to fail all of her male and Mexican students, wouldn't she be engaging in racism and sexism?

Or suppose a Mexican-American with little to no power taunts a young Korean immigrant and beats the hell out of him solely on the basis of him being Korean, eventually killing him. Suppose her family castigates the boy as a murderous racist. Well, I guess, quite paternalistically, if the OP is right, we would have to say: Oh no, you're wrong. That wasn't racism at all. There was no institutional element in it, you see! Now maybe if a white person watched it and didn't do anything, then he would be engaging in racism, but no one else.

[Katherine Brengle]

107. Power over whoever they are trying to oppress -- just like your example.

If a teacher discriminates against a student, that teacher is in a position of power over that student.

It's the microcosm of the larger argument.

It's like a couple of examples that have come up in this thread - a white kid gets jumped by 5 black kids - in that situation, yes, the black kids had the power over the white kid.

As a nation, the white kids have the power over the black kids, and lots of it.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

108. But if a white kid gets jumped by five black kids,

the black kids most likely do not have any institutional power in this country.

I took the OP to mean, as post #64 said, that racism = "Bigotry toward certain groups + the power to make your opinions into social policy," power to make your opinions into social policy meaning "institutional power."

I would say "Bigotry toward certain groups + the power to make your opinions into social policy" = institutional racism.
But any person, anywhere, regardless of power, can be racist, sexist, homophobic, or pretty much anything else.

[Katherine Brengle]

116. I don't think anyone is arguing with the fact that there's a difference between

racism and institutional racism.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

146. Absolutely not true.

You could shut a Klansman in a small box, and he's still be racist.

Racism, sexism, etc are attitudes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the power or otherwise of the person who holds them.

The attempt to link them with power is purely an attempt to redefine the terms to support pre-determined conclusions, and - like most attempts to use words to mean something other than what they mean - should be opposed.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. Don't you love how threads like these tend to unearth the usual suspects? -nt

[IndianaJones]

89. usual suspects? nt.

[wicket]

92. YUP

[Madspirit]

103. Yes they do

Luckily I've gotten to the point I just laugh at them and am very glad I do not have to be anywhere near them in real life.

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

123. Laughing is good.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

111. You're right

It gives the same 4 or 5 people a chance to pour out of the woodwork and continue to label others as mysoginists, members of the ruling class, racists.....all because they happen to share the same skin color/gender/sexual orientation of many of the oppressors of the world.

[Katherine Brengle]

117. Yeah, that's it.

:eyes:

[Madspirit]

119. 4 or 5

:rofl: Dream On. There are only 4 or 5 feminists/gays/lesbians on this board. :rofl:

Oink.

Lee

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

121. Ah, yes, because every and all the "real" feminists/gays/lesbians of DU

...MUST agree with you........

Well, you are on a generalization kick.......so have at it.

[Madspirit]

126. "all the "real" feminists/gays/lesbians of DU MUST agree with you........"

Exactly, I'm glad you understand.

Lee

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

137. Boy, every week there's a thread where you must prove oneself to be a "real" feminist

Flashback to last week when we heard that "real feminists don't watch pornography" and anyone who does isn't allowed to a) Claim to be a feminist (even if they are female) b)Isn't worthy of the air being breathed by "real" feminists and c) are filthy disgusting, vile perverts (there's one thing you and the religious right can agree on, judgement.)

Meanwhile, black America has been shoved to the back of the bus again as other disenfranchised groups glom on to this article regarding race in an attempt to promote their own version of victimhood. Do you feel guilty as I do now???? :sarcasm:

[Madspirit]

125. Oh Yeah

...and there are actually some pretty righteous pro-feminist straight guys here and lots of progressive persons of color who also agree with this.. You're just not progressive or a woman or a gay or a person of color. Go figure.

Lee

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

133. How do you know what I am?

Again, amazing that you make such assumptions.

[slowry]

142. DID YOU EVEN READ THE OP??????????????????//

j/k.

Seriously, all this patting oneself on the back for not being racist, while making sweeping generalizations about "white people" instead of "white power structures", or power structures which favor any one race over another, is going to sell a lot of Robaxacet.

This article was written by a cracker, for crackers, imho.

[undergroundpanther]

155. Keeping the status quo

Is important for racist crackers,because if the blacks were equal,to whites really,and women gays etc.. how could a cracker justify himself and his bigotries and power trips and those social privileges,and how could he call this world just and sit on his ass in fantasy land anymore where he is elite?

Ooh can't let the status quo die, than he might become just another human being among human beings.. Sigh.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Exhibit A. -nt

[qdemn7]

110. Two points

One it's not just Americans. I was talking to a college student visiting the US from Spain. This man was very light-skinned, but had family from several hundred years from Spain. We got to talking about Mexico, Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and their Spanish culture. This guy just states as emphatic as hell... "Those people are NOT Spanish, look at their faces, they are INDIANS."

The second is the dreaded "N"-word and "respect." If you want others to respect you, you must first respect yourself. On one hand for a white, latino, asian.. to use this word can cause a riot, but blacks call each other this all the time and it's thought "cool". Listen to rap and every fifth word is n*****. No other ethnic groups slurs themselves in this manner. And I do not accept that it's "cultural" either. So is it any wonder there is a lack of respect toward blacks by others?

[BlooInBloo]

124. ROFLMAO!!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. Hmm.

"Those people are NOT Spanish, look at their faces, they are INDIANS."

Well, sure, "spanish" in its most literal means a person from spain. Somebody from Mexico wouldn't be Spanish they'd be Mexican, often of Indian (i.e. native mesoamerican) descent, sometimes of clear western european descent, and often some of both.

"If you want others to respect you, you must first respect yourself. On one hand for a white, latino, asian.. to use this word can cause a riot, but blacks call each other this all the time and it's thought "cool". Listen to rap and every fifth word is n*****."

So you're saying you don't respect black people because black people are racist against black people?

[qdemn7]

163. Nort at all..

So you're saying you don't respect black people because black people are racist against black people?

I'm saying that such a use of a hateful term (and it is) by blacks against themsleves just gives ammunition to those non-blacks who use the term.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. You're saying it gives ammunition to racists?

If they're racists, who cares what they have to say?

[qdemn7]

166. Yeah...

I guess you have a point.

[undergroundpanther]

152. Beliefs are things that ensure certain people

Don't GET feminism.These beliefs about the nature of the way reality operates ensures they disregard feminism or any other underclass revolts and what these people are fighting against quite deliberately.

We are all human and we all deserve respect and to be treated equally as valid.But some people with privilege are terrified of equality, because it means they will not be privileged anymore.they will just be a person a vulnerable insignificant person.

Here is a thing that hampers justice is: Just world theory.


According to the hypothesis,(some) My emphasis) people have a strong desire or need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get what they deserve.

Moreover, when we encounter evidence suggesting that the world is not just, we quickly act to restore justice by helping the victim or we persuade ourselves that no injustice has occurred. We either lend assistance or we decide that the rape victim must have asked for it, the homeless person is simply lazy, the fallen star must be an adulterer.

**These attitudes are continually reinforced in the ubiquitous fairy tales, fables, comic books, cop shows and other morality tales of our culture, in which good is always rewarded and evil punished. **

If the belief in a just world simply resulted in humans feeling more comfortable with the universe and its capriciousness, it would not be a matter of great concern for ethicists or social scientists. But Lerner's Just World Hypothesis, if correct, has significant social implications.

**The belief in a just world may undermine a commitment to justice.**


This is why Just world is not just a harmless fantasy..but a horrible reality for some..because just world hypothesis creates the bystander urge and rationalizer bullshit that makes sure that in the social system nothing changes.

For any kind of justice to be done or ethics to matter to us, the happiness and suffering of others must matter to us as much as our own suffering.The fairy tales of the 'just world' that might feel good to the ego of the critic or to the authority to justify his abuses of power..But using a fantasy to maintain the just world fantasy sickness cannot be used to justify injustice,because it is abuse...but too often it IS..used that way.

The conscious mind or ego is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress,the little monkey is frantically making up stories about being in control.(like just world theory)And that just world hypothesis feeds the monkey's insecure ego with a fake demanding overconfidence making it think it is king of the tigers.And so in this blindness caused by belief,justice remains unchallenged because the little monkey is insecure and too anxious to look at how messed up things really are.
Some little monkeys tell lies because they like getting the perks of privilege ,regardless of who else gets hurt.
The goal of abusive people, at work or at home, is to gain or maintain power over others and/or to mask their own incompetence ,to let the little monkey believe he is in control of the tiger even when he obviously is not.
And just world hypothesis fits into this little game perfectly and it makes sure women get treated like objects to be used, and races other than white races get stigmatized, along with gays, trans-people.ect..

So,"When will justice come? When those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are."When the Just World Hypothosis DIES.

The next thing feminists and other equality driven people fight against is the notion some people deserve extra social privileges and others less. A twisted divine right of kings mentality. Social hierarchy cultured through trauma is the unspoken caste system in action.These quotes Quote sum it all up nicely..

“Was there ever any domination that did not appear natural to those who possessed it?”
]John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Economist and Philosopher

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. - John Hay..

Look,

Systems will always act to preserve themselves against change..Same old resistances can be found in certain people and personality types often with certain statuses among the culture to 'keep' or seek..

The goal of abusive people, at work or at home, is to gain or maintain power over others and/or to mask their own incompetence and the fantasy called privilege is the fantasy of a few imposed on the many to make the many believe they are less so the few can tell lies to themselves that they are more or elites and feel like a unjust world is just and they deserved what they got..

In reality we are all human animals,who must eat, shit and live ,whom someday will die.We all are sharing an unpredictable sometimes dangerous planet together. We can grow up and heal this trauma game by refusing to play the roles or we can die , or we can play this sickness by making others die either socially,emotionally or even in some cases physically through torture rape or trauma will not save you..from reality.

Gil Bailie notes that there is a battle underway through which harm is justified, and that the powerful have lost the moral authority by which they have traditionally justified their violence. He argues that stratified culture itself is founded on human sacrifice, the main purpose of which is to make any other violence taboo:

The primary function of the sacred is to so privilege one form of violence, and to confer upon it such transcendent prestige, that a profane imitation of it becomes unthinkable (86).

The dominator does not want to lose his position of power and the perks.A dominator HATES equality. Because a dominator masks his own unworthiness through power-over.
And blames a victim for daring to speak out as a survivor and tell truth to power,truth power wants to hide from to justify its own position.

And that sickness of illegitimate power is what feminists gays trans-people blacks Indians and the poor among other oppressed peoples the 'lessors) are all are fighting against..this hierarchical domination(the elites or privileged ) and it's cultural traumas inflicted to keep the lessor lives less lived, done by an illegitimate authority figure ..be it a person or a social class,and often to the oppressor the oppression is invisible to them,because they play a game of make believe so they can keep that superior position..

Time we stopped playing these games.

[ismnotwasm]

154. I don't think I've told you

How much I appreciate you.:hug:

Awesome post

[undergroundpanther]

156. Thanks

:loveya:

I am determined to unravel this game of make believe society plays that keeps us in a state of trauma and reaction,..It's killing all of us you know, it must stop.Even if certain people are scared of what that might mean to their little just worlds.

[LWolf]

159. The power holders don't like to see their own behaviors

given back to them.

The bottom line, for me anyway, is that bigotry, hate, fear, discrimination focused on those who are different from the bigot by some factor, is not ok no matter who it comes from.

The "reverse racism" charge, though, is just childish, imo.

It reminds me of the bully who defends himself by crying, "but they did it too!!!!!"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

161. I don't think that makes sense.

Firstly, you're viewing all people of one ethnic group as a single entity, which I think is a big mistake. Collective responsibility is *always* a bad idea. Unless you claim that all white people are racist, which is not I think a position worth taking seriously, you can't identify them all with the bully.

Secondly, in the context of a playground confrontation, "but they did it too" is a valid response - punishing some children and not others for the same behaviour is a *textbook* example of bad child-rearing, I believe.

As you say, I think that the bottom line is that bigotry is not OK whoever it comes from. I'm don't understand why you effectively contradicy yourself in the next sentence.

[undergroundpanther]

206. Bullies are bullies

and if they refuse to stop after a request the bullying stop,than they deserve whatever they get from those they hurt and oppress for breaking boundaries,period.I don't care if it's a child or an adult. A bully is an asshole.
Secondly if said bully lacks internal self policing shoots off his mouth and refuses to acknowledge his mouthing off hurt someone after someone said their comment hurt, than said bully has shown his ass and it's open season to kick that ass.And show the bully where it is expected the boundaries be. If bully does not comply after warnings and returned threats for threats,well do whatever it requires to make him stop.If authorities do not recognize the problem it's up to each of us to take care of it,we do not need permission from some empty sound authority figure to keep our lives safe.
When authorities are the bullies it's called corrupt power for a reason.

[LWolf]

249. I'll try to explain.

I teach. I teach kids. Over the course of my career, I've taught k - 8th grades.

A universal response, when confronted with misbehavior, is "but he/she did it too!"

As if what someone else does, good or bad, excuses the wrongdoer from accountability for their own actions.

After 25 years of dealing with this in an incredible myriad of variations, I hear it in the charges of "reverse racism."

Does that mean that I think that red, yellow, or brown people can't be racist, and exhibit that racism against caucasians? Of course not.

It does mean, though, that the caucasians are the powerholders, the bullies, who have used racism to consolidate and hold power over others for a very long time. I don't think they should be pointing fingers at others for their own failings.

You are correct, of course, to point out that members of a race are not a single entity. Members of any group are not a single entity.

All caucasians are not racist, and all brown people don't hate white people. That doesn't make the prevalence of racism any less real.

Hate breeds hate. It shouldn't surprise anyone that any human, subjected to any of those "isms," might develop some prejudices, or some hate, against their offenders.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

162. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is just racism, whoever it comes from.

Racism is racism. There's nothing "reverse" about racism directed by minorities against whites.

All racism is bad.

I am worried and disappointed that so many people on this thread are trying to weasel around that, even when they're not actively denying it.

If "reverse racism" were to mean anything, it would be xenophilia or something, not just more racism.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

170. Right again.

[undergroundpanther]

211. agreed

From a position of power over, privilege and dominance to sit there and play victim (reverse racism is one such way this shit goes on),when someone calls you out for being an asshole is just disgusting.It proves the dominator or dominating class in question that their power and clam to victim hood is a total fraud and these oppressed dominator's have not earned the respect they demand by demonstrating integrity and is unworthy of the deference and silence they wants out of others they hurt..

There is NO SUCH THING as an oppressed dominator,or privileged class.You cannot be on top and say you get kicked around like those you place beneath you. It is impossible.That's the whole reason dominator's seek to dominate,they want to be the fuckers not the fuckees,and they set up society to protect their privileged status because they are oblivious to their own lack of integrity and compassion and don't want to be reminded they are oppressive to others because it breaks the nice illusion they deserve those privileges they have gotten at others expense .

[Donald Ian Rankin]

222. I think you may be misinterpreting my post.

I tend to disagree with much of what you've said.

You make the mistake of assuming that racism and the like operate between groups, rather than between individuals.

It is *not* the case that examples of discrimination cancel out.

It is entirely possible for a member of a group which is largely not discriminated against to be discriminated against as an individual, and such discrimination matters as much as any other.

When I say "there is no such thing as reverse racism", I do not, as I think you may have thought, mean that there is no such thing as (e.g) anti-white bigotry, nor that specific instances of this do not matter just as much as specific instances of any other form of bigotry (although the set of such instances matters less, because it is a smaller set).

I mean that such bigotry is in no way "reverse". It's racism, plain and simple, and as bad as any other.

My impression is that you do not, in fact, agree with this? Or have I misread? I'm afraid I *don't* agree with the model you propose of a class of dominators with shared interests collaborating to oppress - I don't think it provides at all an accurate picture of race relations.

[cgrindley]

234. That's five years old and as dumb as a box of hair

racism is racism.

[undergroundpanther]

254. racism is also

a set of beliefs.WRONG beliefs, but beliefs none the less.
And some beliefs enable people to lie to themselves easier about themselves and others..Racists do this, elitists do this,as do bullies and sexists do.

What is racism besides hate?
It is a sick inflation of self worth that is false, evil and sick to the point it causes others that hate also to be attracted to the sick evil belief called racism to prop themselves up on a sick belief system claiming merit when they have none,so they can claim be somebody of worth instead of the nothing piece of shit they are.Racists are sickening evil scum,the problem is they don't want to admit that they are because of their beliefs,(racism)and throw away that sick evil belief that ___ is inferior to them that their egos cling to.
Dumb as a box of hair? You don't know me very well do you?
I could say the same of you,sharp as a bowling ball.*smirk*