Atheism+

[Versus]

Originally Posted by edorien

Take for example, the benefits of being white in modern day USA, when compared to the case back in the 1950s.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. I couldn't find a difference.

Similarly the disadvantages of being female in the west compared to the disadvantages of being female in Saudi Arabia.

Are we talking about privilege or oppression? Or are you implying that women in the west are privileged? You also need to explain what you mean by this.

By portraying women as brave for working in field x, it's portraying them as not normal. While it is a brave thing for an individual to do, having it portrayed as such in the media is not a good thing as it perpetuates the problem by promoting the stereotype that field-x is mostly occupied by men.

Wait. Women actually are disadvantaged in male-dominated fields. They are disproprtionately represented and face social challenges. How is recognizing that perpretuateing a stereotype? It's not even stereotype; women's disadvantages are very real.

A Japanese-American enlists into the military during world war two. Is the media perpetuating a stereotype that he isn't typical by calling him brave?

A case in point is the decline of women earning computing degrees as the stereotypes of "computer geeks" as socially awkward male with poor hygiene gained prominence (40% in the 80, 10% today US, not the sole reason obviously)

I want you to show me how these are related at all.

[Acharis]

Originally Posted by Versus

To be fair, I had to ask Saya if she thought it would be okay if I posted it. I obviously have no resonance with it.

I think it's good that you did, for all the people that need to hear that stuff it should be a goddamn public service announcement.


I just read the entire thread, and fuuuck. I'm not joking when I say that was distressing. Unfortunately there is plenty of resonance for me, and it makes my blood boil that some people get the privilege of minimising this or not having to think about it on a near daily basis/at all.

How could I explain to someone that doesn't care to listen that it isn't about the bloody coffee or the elevator guy's intentions?


Even though Elevatorgate has died down this is an issue I experience regularly.

But at least there's other people that get it. AshleyO, Solumina, Saya, Versus.. Both male and female, which is refreshing.

[edorien]

Originally Posted by Versus

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. I couldn't find a difference.

Are we talking about privilege or oppression? You also need to explain what you mean by this.

Fair enough. The terms, Privilege and Oppression, largely recast the same problem through benefits/disadvantages that the privileged/oppressed possess with respect to the other. Essentially, the terms male privilege/female oppression just describe the same problem from a different perspective.

i.e. Discussions of privilege treat the issues as advantages of one class that exist beyond the natural condition of the oppressed.
Oppression on the other hand treats the situation of the privileged as the natural state from which the oppressed are barred in some way.

However, the terms do tend to focus the discussion on particularly aspects. Privilege tends to focus mostly on societal/cultural/historical issues,
while discussions of oppression tend to be focused on the barriers preventing the oppressed from acquiring status.

By historical, I am referring to the existence of previous conditions that made it easier for the privileged to gain status, and by status, I mean acquisition of property/wealth/education/voting rights/freedom from harassment/etc.

Now that I clarified how I tend to treat the terms, it should be apparent that white privilege has changed from then to now

Or are you implying that women in the west are privileged?

Sort of, but only it the sense that:
Women in the west are less oppressed than those in Saudi Arabia.
Men in Saudi Arabia have more "privileges" over women, than men in the west.

Hopefully, that clarifies why I would argue that "privilege" does have a circumstantial aspect.

Wait. Women actually are disadvantaged in male-dominated fields. They are disproprtionately represented and face social challenges. How is recognizing that perpretuateing a stereotype? It's not even stereotype; women's disadvantages are very real.

I agree that women are disadvantaged in male-dominant fields, but that's not where the sterotyping plays a role.
In some ways, such articles are beneficial as they can provide reassurance to those who already know that they want to enter the field by showing that they can be successful in the field, however there's another component to the message in the articles. In implying that the women in the field are special/brave, it also highlights that they are different (through the words brave, courageous, noble, etc) than most women, simply because they choose to enter a mostly-male field. Then the desire to fit in and presence of an image of the typical worker in the field in the peer group can serve to discourage the less confident member of the group from entering such a field.

I want you to show me how these are related at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/s...ll&oref=slogin

From this link :

“The nerd factor is huge,” Dr. Cuny said. According to a 2005 report by the National Center for Women and Information Technology, an academic-industry collaborative formed to address the issue, when high school girls think of computer scientists they think of geeks, pocket protectors, isolated cubicles and a lifetime of staring into a screen writing computer code.

Originally Posted by Acharis

How could I explain to someone that doesn't care to listen that it isn't about the bloody coffee or the elevator guy's intentions?

Well you could try to get them to consider how they'd feel in a similar situation, because from my reading, the event ran as:

1) the victim was doing an activity until late
2) the perpertator was also there
3) they didn't speak/socialise much while in involved in the activity
4) the victim left to walk home and the perpetrator followed.
5) the perpetrator waited until the victim was in an isolated area
6) and then approached
which sounds a lot like the initial actions in countless assaults/ muggings/etc

[Acharis]

I don't see how the relatively better situation for women in the West matters. It's like comparing relative poverty to absolute poverty. Just because a homeless person can purchase McDonalds with change they're given (as opposed to searching for contaminated water) doesn't mean the homeless Western person isn't open to high levels of violence and social exclusion.

Both are sub-standard living conditions.

Originally Posted by edorien

Well you could try to get them to consider how they'd feel in a similar situation, because from my reading, the event ran as:

1) the victim was doing an activity until late
2) the perpertator was also there
3) they didn't speak/socialise much while in involved in the activity
4) the victim left to walk home and the perpetrator followed.
5) the perpetrator waited until the victim was in an isolated area
6) and then approached
which sounds a lot like the initial actions in countless assaults/ muggings/etc

I could try... but I'd still hear "But I don't leave my car unlocked, I don't walk with valuable hanging out of my pockets blah blah".

Mugging or bashing isn't the same as ****. With mugging you have the choice not to carry valuables, or the choice to just hand over the goods. It's usually obvious what's happening to anyone around, you don't usually get blamed for it, allegations are taken seriously, and it's unlikely to be done unpredictably by someone you trust.

With **** or sexual harassment the target is us - our bodies, our safety and personal power. Very different to property theft.

Also while men can and do get *****/harassed; men aren't actively taught to fear **** or worry where sexual interest may lead.


Doesn't work

[edorien]

Originally Posted by Acharis

I don't see how the relatively better situation for women in the West matters. It's like comparing relative poverty to absolute poverty. Just because a homeless person can purchase McDonalds with change they're given (as opposed to searching for contaminated water) doesn't mean the homeless Western person isn't open to high levels of violence and social exclusion.

Both are sub-standard living conditions.

I agree that oppression is bad regardless of the extent of it, but there are differences in the expression of such "privilege"/oppression that are dependent on the location/prevailing culture.

In the west at least, there is a small chance to address those responsible for the harassment while elsewhere, even that painfully small chance of justice is reduced due to the risk of being punished for being the victim

I could try... but I'd still hear "But I don't leave my car unlocked, I don't walk with valuable hanging out of my pockets blah blah".

That's unfortunately the best I can come up with, unless of course you want to scare the person in question.

Mugging or bashing isn't the same as ****.

Which is largely the problem, as there pretty much the only crimes that would be the outcome for a male in that situation, unless of course you want to claim murder is a possible outcome which while comparable to **** would result in claims of exaggeration by the majority.

[AshleyO]

Holy fuck.

Now I've got white boys crying about being three times more likely to get murdered than women.

Of course the statistics they use are conveniently race blind.

Lately, I've been accused of being sexist and racist against white males. But honestly, I simply can't find the ability to have any sympathy for my fellow white males nearly as much as others that live under this white male privilege.

The extent that they suffer goes so far as gender norms being thrust upon them without giving them much chance to think about it or consider other options. But even THEN it only takes a TINY TINY bit of courage on their part to buck those norms and then everyone eventually comes to accept them anyway.

You know what? I'll leave it up to those that understand this stuff the most.

At what degree should I have any sympathy for white males?

Surely those such as Saya and Versus who I imagine are far more learned about these subjects than I can point it out; they seem to have a very academic and visceral understanding of all this. But I fail to see where white men critically suffer as opposed to everyone else.

[Versus]

I'm staying away from g.net today. I just wanted to say that I don't have an academic anything.

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

Lately, I've been accused of being sexist and racist against white males. But honestly, I simply can't find the ability to have any sympathy for my fellow white males nearly as much as others that live under this white male privilege.

....

At what degree should I have any sympathy for white males?

Surely those such as Saya and Versus who I imagine are far more learned about these subjects than I can point it out; they seem to have a very academic and visceral understanding of all this. But I fail to see where white men critically suffer as opposed to everyone else.

The only time I can think when to be sympathetic to a white male is when they lose a job and their house because of the economic situation. But other than that, I really don't have any sympathy when they tend to be in the face of others about their privilege.

It's like when I worked security at a local store and a Cadillac SUV was keyed. The owner of the vehicle was complaining about it to me and it was really hard for me not to say, "Dude, I ride public trans. You should be happy the car was only keyed and the tires weren't slashed."

[Versus]

Originally Posted by edorien

Now that I clarified how I tend to treat the terms, it should be apparent that white privilege has changed from then to now

I'm not asking you to define your terms, I'm asking you to illustrate how white privilege has changed; I haven't lived in 1950's America and I haven't found any commentary that I could say is different from now.

Sort of, but only it the sense that:
Women in the west are less oppressed than those in Saudi Arabia.
Men in Saudi Arabia have more "privileges" over women, than men in the west.

Dude. It's not a privilege to not experience it like women in Saudi Arabia. Women in the west don't benefit from that. Men in the west like Dawkins do because they can at least say "Well you're not in Saudi Arabia" when someone gets annoyed from being hit on in an elevator.

Hopefully, that clarifies why I would argue that "privilege" does have a circumstantial aspect.

Don't misunderstand; I already know why you're arguing it. I'll get the rest when I get a chance.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by edorien

I agree that women are disadvantaged in male-dominant fields, but that's not where the sterotyping plays a role.
In some ways, such articles are beneficial as they can provide reassurance to those who already know that they want to enter the field by showing that they can be successful in the field, however there's another component to the message in the articles. In implying that the women in the field are special/brave, it also highlights that they are different (through the words brave, courageous, noble, etc) than most women, simply because they choose to enter a mostly-male field. Then the desire to fit in and presence of an image of the typical worker in the field in the peer group can serve to discourage the less confident member of the group from entering such a field.

Isn't that the point? To highlight that there is a problem and praise the people who challenge it? If I were to say that Sally Ride was a pioneer, would it alienate young women or uplift them? I think that article was highlighting the perception of the actual field and the lack of variety in it's applications, not the perception of it's community as you suggest. As it stands, it pretty much is a boys club. I don't see anything tragic in addressing it as such. What strike me as tragic are the instances where women aren't given the spot light.

[edorien]

Originally Posted by Versus

Dude. It's not a privilege to not experience it like women in Saudi Arabia. Women in the west don't benefit from that. Men in the west like Dawkins do because they can at least say "Well you're not in Saudi Arabia" when someone gets annoyed from being hit on in an elevator.

I'm not trying to justify mistreatment of women in the west, because they suffer more elsewhere, and I apologize it's it has come across that way.

I haven't lived in 1950's America and I haven't found any commentary that I could say is different from now.

I was under the impression that the jim crow laws no longer applied in america.
That the funding inequalities between white and black schools had been reduced, rather it is now a divide between well funded facilities in rich mostly white areas and poor mostly-black area. Similarly I was under the impression that white people no longer had the right to sit anywhere on buses, while black people were restricted to the back few rows (referring to Rosa Parks here). I'd consider these to indicate that aspects of white privilege have changed slightly.

Isn't that the point? To highlight that there is a problem and praise the people who challenge it? If I were to say that Sally Ride was a pioneer, would it alienate young women or uplift them?

I'll explain where I'm coming from with this. During my time as a physics post-grad, I was elected to a outreach and diversity committee. While there (in 2010), this topic came up (in the context of leaflets to be distributed at the annual science festival we were involved in organizing), and I suggested we ran with one that showed women entering the field as brave. It didn't go down well, and it was criticized by the female members for the reasons outlined. It surprised me, when I first heard it, although it could just be a quirk unique to that group.

[AshleyO]

Why do I feel like you're confusing discrimination with privilege?

I mean... I guess back then it was a bit easier for white people to be nakedly racist in public.

I don't think I can guarantee that a white person would be safe in this city if they were spouting racism like they did back in the 50s.

[edorien]

It not really a matter of confusing the two, it's more the case that I would argue that discrimination is the overt enforcement of the privileged position

[Saya]

Originally Posted by edorien

I was under the impression that the jim crow laws no longer applied in america.
That the funding inequalities between white and black schools had been reduced, rather it is now a divide between well funded facilities in rich mostly white areas and poor mostly-black area. Similarly I was under the impression that white people no longer had the right to sit anywhere on buses, while black people were restricted to the back few rows (referring to Rosa Parks here). I'd consider these to indicate that aspects of white privilege have changed slightly.

The face of discrimination has changed. There's no legal protection of white supremacy, technically, but most white people are racist and we have far more generational wealth and power than any other racial group. Police brutalize black people all the time with no consequences. White people still isolate themselves, live in mostly or all white neighbourhoods, only make friends with other white people, and find new ways to express our racism (I'm not racist, but... There are some exceptions, but... I think interracial marriage should be legal, but...). If we take privilege in the literal legal sense, to be above the law, we still very much have this legality, black people and Latin@s by far over-represent their population numbers in the prison population, while white people underrepresent. People of colour are far more likely to receive harsher sentences, and prison labour was created to control black labour after slavery was legally abolished.

I'll explain where I'm coming from with this. During my time as a physics post-grad, I was elected to a outreach and diversity committee. While there (in 2010), this topic came up (in the context of leaflets to be distributed at the annual science festival we were involved in organizing), and I suggested we ran with one that showed women entering the field as brave. It didn't go down well, and it was criticized by the female members for the reasons outlined. It surprised me, when I first heard it, although it could just be a quirk unique to that group.

When dealing with all kinds of people it pays to remember that not everyone you meet is a representative of that group that speaks for everyone in that group. I assure you we women do celebrate our pioneers, even if some have a problem with it, and it could very well be that a suggestion coming from a dude on who to look up to didn't sound too great. There's also a huge problem that cis men have, in which they tokenize the few who make it and act like it is enough.

[Versus]

Saya said it really well, and I think you're seeing what I'm getting at.

The overt is harder to get away with, so the system has changed to be far more subtle. You mentioned Rosa Parks, but you haven't thought about who rides buses now as opposed to the 1950's. You mentioned Jim Crow laws, but you haven't thought about how white people don't typically chose to live in racially mixed neighborhoods or work in racially mixed environments, and so on. White privilege is a really bad argument that privilege is circumstantial thing. It's really something that can follow a person no matter where they go in the world and as far back as their white-centric history book wants to travel.

But don't be mistaken; discrimination doesn't need to be overt. I mean, fuck. Just the other day when I was at work, I was out with one of my co-workers while we were inspecting one of the units there to train. Him and I are both black, though I have a lighter skin tone, and everybody else was white. Someone from the unit asked if anybody had a lighter, and I gave him mine. When he came back from smoking, he tried to give it back to my co-worker because he honestly thought he was the one who let him borrow it.