[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
oh god. here we go.
I’m pretty sure we are not “allowed” to hit anyone, regardless of sex.
Men and women still are not equal in society. White male privilege continues to exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that men have it easy.
And, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but…I can open my own fucking door.[/quote]
But I enjoy opening the door!
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
White male privilege is a result of the way in which social institutions are set up so that white men benefit most, and women and other races are at a disadvantage. One example of this could be the overrepresentation of men in politics.
But…I wouldn’t worry too much about it. All these things related to the social sciences are useless anyway. (Yes, I’m making a reference to that old thread) Plus, I’m not going to play the game where we argue over whether or not men and women are equal, deserve to be equal, or if equality is even possible.[/quote]
Sorry but thats where you are wrong. If a black man lives in a wealthy suburb, and if that black man is wealthy, he will be getting the same privileges that rich white men enjoy. Its more about the structure of inequality and life chances than the issue of race.
I find it interesting how people point out the “over representation of white men in politics” to talk about rich white men. Here is a thought, if a white man is poor, and a black man is rich and they are both interested in politics. Who will actually get somewhere?
As for the question of women in politics, it seems that women are less interested in it than men. This is more due to upbringing of children and the “alpha male” leader than discrimination based on gender.
But I guess people still think because women make up 50 or so percent of the population thats how the ratio to everything should be. Why don’t you complain about the overpopulation of men in physically demanding jobs and dangerous jobs?
Sorry but we are not all equal, this world is unfair, and however bad you think women and minorities are discriminated in the western nations, thats nothing compared to what people go through in third world countries. There is no white man privilege, there is only the privilege of the rich and the poor.
Lol, how the hell did a thread about a drunk guy resisting a taser turn into this
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Lol, how the hell did a thread about a drunk guy resisting a taser turn into this[/quote]
I am a master pot stirrer 
All these women that can open their own doors, I hope they stay on the boat when its sinking and let the men and the children into the life boats first 
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Lol, how the hell did a thread about a drunk guy resisting a taser turn into this[/quote]
I don’t know but I’d like to taser this whole thread.
While we are on the topic of white male privilege and politics here are some interesting wikipedia facts about the US.
Of the 43 U.S. Presidents so far, only five have been more than an inch below average height. Moreover, of the 54 U.S. presidential elections only 13 have been won by the shorter candidate, and only 11 times has the shorter candidate received more popular (as opposed to electoral) votes.
A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 feet tall, which is approximately 3 inches taller than the average American man. Fully 30% of these CEOs were 6 foot 2 inches tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height. Equally significantly, similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 foot 7 inches in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.
Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest ever US president with an age of 42 years and 322 days, while Reagan was the oldest Aged 69 years and 349 days when he took office.
Also to my knowledge, all US presidents so far were heterosexual and all have identified as being Christian (I may be wrong on this but can’t be bothered checking).
With all this in mind I feel that from now on it should be referred to as Tall Heterosexual Christian Middle aged White Male Privilege.
note: I am very bored
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
Hang on, I thought that due to political correctness that it is Ok for a man to hit a woman?
I thought since women got equal pay and the vote we could slap em?
Sorry If I got this wrong but I thought the sexes were now equal and we are now allowed to bitch slap bitches?[/quote]
While you’re on a bitch slapping crusade, don’t forget to bitch slap your momma for giving birth to you.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
While we are on the topic of white male privilege and politics here are some interesting wikipedia facts about the US.
Of the 43 U.S. Presidents so far, only five have been more than an inch below average height. Moreover, of the 54 U.S. presidential elections only 13 have been won by the shorter candidate, and only 11 times has the shorter candidate received more popular (as opposed to electoral) votes.
A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 feet tall, which is approximately 3 inches taller than the average American man. Fully 30% of these CEOs were 6 foot 2 inches tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height. Equally significantly, similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 foot 7 inches in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.
Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest ever US president with an age of 42 years and 322 days, while Reagan was the oldest Aged 69 years and 349 days when he took office.
Also to my knowledge, all US presidents so far were heterosexual and all have identified as being Christian (I may be wrong on this but can’t be bothered checking).
With all this in mind I feel that from now on it should be referred to as Tall Heterosexual Christian Middle aged White Male Privilege.
note: I am very bored[/quote]
YES!
You are getting at what’s going on with race, gender, and white male privilege! “Whiteness” and “maleness” confer status, which leads to social power (height does, too).
[quote]typerr wrote:
Sorry but thats where you are wrong. If a black man lives in a wealthy suburb, and if that black man is wealthy, he will be getting the same privileges that rich white men enjoy. Its more about the structure of inequality and life chances than the issue of race.
I find it interesting how people point out the “over representation of white men in politics” to talk about rich white men. Here is a thought, if a white man is poor, and a black man is rich and they are both interested in politics. Who will actually get somewhere?
As for the question of women in politics, it seems that women are less interested in it than men. This is more due to upbringing of children and the “Alpha Male” leader than discrimination based on gender.
But I guess people still think because women make up 50 or so percent of the population thats how the ratio to everything should be. Why don’t you complain about the overpopulation of men in physically demanding jobs and dangerous jobs?
Sorry but we are not all equal, this world is unfair, and however bad you think women and minorities are discriminated in the western nations, thats nothing compared to what people go through in third world countries. There is no white man privilege, there is only the privilege of the rich and the poor.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone will argue that social class isn’t an issue when discussing social inequality. Race, class and gender are all issues and they are often so interconnected that it is nearly impossible to address one without the others. For simplicity’s sake, as this is a discussion about a guy that resisted a taser, I didn’t see the point of getting into that as well.
Perhaps a better example of a privilege would be that men can be out at night and don’t really have to worry about a woman jumping out of an alley and raping them (statistically, that’s not how most rapes happen, I know, but that is what we are taught could happen.) Or, maybe that when talking about people or professions, it is commonplace to say things like “fireman” or “all men are created equal”. I guess my point is that it’s also the silly little things that we don’t really notice in our every day life.
With regards to the “men do lots of dangerous jobs”…If you look at my previous post, I also said that despite certain privileges men have, they don’t have it easy. Meaning that men have to deal with a lot of shitty things too. I’m not saying that men have it easy and have all the power and women are helpless and oppressed because they are women.
And…If you want to talk about dangerous jobs and the third world, don’t forget about the female sex workers in Asia and sweatshop labor.
[quote]Ultimate Badass wrote:
buckeye girl wrote:
oh god. here we go.
I’m pretty sure we are not “allowed” to hit anyone, regardless of sex.
Men and women still are not equal in society. White male privilege continues to exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that men have it easy.
And, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but…I can open my own fucking door.
What are these white male privileges you write about?[/quote]
A couple of years ago, these audit studies were done, where black and white actors (actors pretending to be applicants, not the holywood type; matched on every conceivable characteristic, with IDENTICAL background stories) applied for jobs. The white actors were offered the job between 50% and 500% more than the black actors. The funny thing was (and this didn’t come out until they were being debriefed), the black actors had no idea they were being discriminated against. It’s just the way they had always been treated, so they had no baseline to compare it to. In reality, the black applicants were being told the position was already filled, and then the white applicant (who came in second) would be offered the position. Being white resulted in a significant increase in the probability of being hired.
When women are competent at their jobs, they do not enjoy the same job outcomes as men. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that a) women are perceived as less competent than men b) women’s competence, when demonstrated, is devalued (she got lucky, it’s because someone else helped her, etc.) and c) when their competence is irrefutable, they are personally derogated (she is such a bitch, she has no people skills, she is too “manly”). All of these things have been shown to bias selection and promotion rates. If you look at the leaky pipeline model (which demonstrates the effect of a small amount of bias over many decisions, it suddenly becomes very clear why there are so few female execs.
I hope this answers your question about where white male privilege can be found. By the way, everything I have said here, I can provide a reference for from a peer-reviewed journal, and would be happy to provide it.
Oh, and on a side note, they make pink tasers. I want one so I can tase the scary guys in alleys that will try to rape me, and the guys that open doors for me.
Aleksandr, its nice to see that one person understands where I’m coming from.
Interesting study, too. I think I’ve heard of other ones where it is set up so that two women compete for a job and one is beautiful and the other is not, but they both have the same qualifications. It’s usually the attractive woman that gets hired. No clue where I heard about this. Probably not out of a scholarly journal, but interesting nonetheless.
[quote]typerr wrote:
Sorry but thats where you are wrong. If a black man lives in a wealthy suburb, and if that black man is wealthy, he will be getting the same privileges that rich white men enjoy. Its more about the structure of inequality and life chances than the issue of race.
[/quote]
Reference? OR is this your opinion? see my last post for contradicting evidence.
Being white confers status. Money confers status. At what point of poorness does money become more important than race (if it ever does). I have seen rich black men receive racial slurs from poor white men. If you don’t think that there are power dynamics at play there, you’ve clearly never experience what that’s like.
Similarly, it is not at all uncommon for men to sexually harass their female superiors, but I have NEVER seen a report of a woman sexually harassing a male superior. Again, sexual harassment is largely about power dynamics (look at next years issue of the Annals of the Academy of Management for a chapter on sexual harassment).
But… So… You don’t see how “the upbringing of children” that emphasizes power-seeking in men (being the “Alpha Male”) but discourages the same behavior in women (see my last post) results in a power imbalance between men and women?
Interestingly, women are most likely to experience sexual harassment in “manly” jobs. There are plenty of women who are strong enough to do these jobs, and would like to do them, but they are being actively kept out by men who feel threatened by them. The movie “North Country” gives a pretty good account of what this sexual harassment looks like, and I recommend you watch it (most men have no idea what “sexual harassment” looks like).
So the argument is “it’s even worse over there, so be happy with what we’re giving you”?
For the record, “white” confers status just about everywhere in the world, including (maybe especially) third world countries. This is probably due to the internalization of power imbalances brought on by european colonialism, and modern economic imperialism.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
Aleksandr, its nice to see that one person understands where I’m coming from.
Interesting study, too. I think I’ve heard of other ones where it is set up so that two women compete for a job and one is beautiful and the other is not, but they both have the same qualifications. It’s usually the attractive woman that gets hired. No clue where I heard about this. Probably not out of a scholarly journal, but interesting nonetheless.
[/quote]
Attractiveness is a funny thing. It makes life better, but like race, most people only experience one, and have no idea that they are privileged/handicapped by their appearance. There are two peer-reviewed papers I have seen that found that professors that were rated as more attractive received better evaluations from students (and the students actually received better grades and reported having learned more!). Because of how pay in universities works (it’s partially based on student evals), more attractive profs actually get paid more for their teaching!
Also, did you know that if two women are sexually harassed, and one is ugly while the other is attractive, an observer is more likely to perceive the attractive one as being sexually harassed? Sad, but true.
Anyway, I’m glad I could remind you that not all men have misogynistic attitudes.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
A couple of years ago, these audit studies were done, where black and white actors (actors pretending to be applicants, not the holywood type; matched on every conceivable characteristic, with IDENTICAL background stories) applied for jobs. The white actors were offered the job between 50% and 500% more than the black actors. The funny thing was (and this didn’t come out until they were being debriefed), the black actors had no idea they were being discriminated against. It’s just the way they had always been treated, so they had no baseline to compare it to. In reality, the black applicants were being told the position was already filled, and then the white applicant (who came in second) would be offered the position. Being white resulted in a significant increase in the probability of being hired.
When women are competent at their jobs, they do not enjoy the same job outcomes as men. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that a) women are perceived as less competent than men b) women’s competence, when demonstrated, is devalued (she got lucky, it’s because someone else helped her, etc.) and c) when their competence is irrefutable, they are personally derogated (she is such a bitch, she has no people skills, she is too “manly”). All of these things have been shown to bias selection and promotion rates. If you look at the leaky pipeline model (which demonstrates the effect of a small amount of bias over many decisions, it suddenly becomes very clear why there are so few female execs.
I hope this answers your question about where white male privilege can be found. By the way, everything I have said here, I can provide a reference for from a peer-reviewed journal, and would be happy to provide it.[/quote]
A similar study focused on names, using resumes. Some had ethnic-sounding names, others stereotypically “white” names. The resumes were otherwise identical. Same result. The Jamals were passed over in favor of the Jonathans.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
A similar study focused on names, using resumes. Some had ethnic-sounding names, others stereotypically “white” names. The resumes were otherwise identical. Same result. The Jamals were passed over in favor of the Jonathans.
[/quote]
That’s right!
I was saving it as a counter for the inevitable “the actors probably behaved differently” argument, but it’s nice to see that I’m not the only person in the world that has read these papers!
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
For the record, “white” confers status just about everywhere in the world, including (maybe especially) third world countries. This is probably due to the internalization of power imbalances brought on by european colonialism, and modern economic imperialism.[/quote]
That is only if you ask yourself the question why are ahead of them economically?
You might as well ask, why are they behind.
Look at Zimbabwe and you´ll see why.
We could only kick there asses on so many levels because the refuse to let go of the Dark Ages and tribalism.
So be it, but then you do not get to complain about modern economic imperialism.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
White male privilege is a result of the way in which social institutions are set up so that white men benefit most, and women and other races are at a disadvantage.
[/quote]
Except when applying to college, financial grants, and various other things when it hurts you to be a white male.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
A similar study focused on names, using resumes. Some had ethnic-sounding names, others stereotypically “white” names. The resumes were otherwise identical. Same result. The Jamals were passed over in favor of the Jonathans.
That’s right!
I was saving it as a counter for the inevitable “the actors probably behaved differently” argument, but it’s nice to see that I’m not the only person in the world that has read these papers![/quote]
No indeed! It looks like three of us have read them.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
… and the guys that open doors for me. :)[/quote]
I don’t get this. What’s with all the complaining about people opening doors?