Not really wrong. The question is what is she implying by saying that.
Option 1: White privilege is basically a result of a larger percentage of white people making good decisions to take advantage of the time tested construct of the nuclear family to create a nurturing and stable environment in which children are more likely to grow up happy and successful. The proper way to eliminate white privilege is for everyone to take advantage of this system, as there is nothing inherent in the nuclear family that makes it harder for non-white people to do it. In fact many non-whites do it and many whites donât. If everyone does it, all children will be better off and none will have more privilege than others.
Option 2: White privilege is basically a result of a larger percentage of white people making good decisions to take advantage of the time tested construct of the nuclear family to create a nurturing and stable environment in which children are more likely to grow up happy and successful. The proper way to eliminate white privilege is to discourage and hinder white people from having nuclear families so that their children donât have the advantages that those families confer. If all cultures are full of broken families, all children will be worse off and none wil have more privilege than others.
Option 1 I agree with. Option 2 is a special sort of child hating evil.
Well, my point here is certainly not to persuade you that you should âsubscribeâ to a Marxist critique of the family. It (my point) is more about pushing back against intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness (on the part of the website).
As an aside, I believe the prof is using the term conservative in its classical sense of âmaintaining the traditional status quo.â So in that regard, the Marxist critique of the nuclear family is:
âMarxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism â the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.â
Yes, that is what Marxists doâthey examine how corporate-controlled aspects of society and culture are used to further the capitalist agenda of the controlling corporations.
Depends upon what you mean by concerns. Iâd say the phenomenon of white folk getting together and making babies is wholly unimpacted by her views, so they (your concerns) are dismiss-able from that perspective. On the other hand, your intellectual objections to her worldview (assuming you hold some; you havenât shared any yet) cannot and should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
The appropriateness of F-bombs aside: From her perspectiveâwhich has a solid scholarly pedigreeâthe nuclear family is an artificial construct, the primary purpose of which is to promulgate class (or in this case, white) supremacy, as well as labor exploitation. I do not expect you to agree with her on this score (I donât). But I would hope you could acknowledge the validity of her perspective when it is evaluated in context. In other words, she is not simply an unhinged individual who rails inexplicably against white people and/or nuclear families; rather, her views draw on an extensive and respected scholarly corpus.
I am not defending her so much as attempting to defend intellectual integrity against those who 1) do not value it, and 2) would subvert it to score ideological points (I am referring here to the website.) I would hope you would be on my side in this regard.
That much is self-evident. Like all of us at one time or another, you swallowed the clickbait.
The whole conundrum of white privilege is that the comparative statuses of white and black folk never reach a point of âall other things being equal.â For example, I donât care how wealthy/successful a black family is, they still have to have âthe talkâ with their adolescent sons about what to do if pulled over by the policeâa talk white parents do not feel the same need to have. That is white privilege.
And you have yet to successfully push back on her assertion that white families perpetuate white privilege.
IMO, the existence of white privilege is a fact, plain and simple. I acknowledge that reasonable people can (and do) disagree as to what specific phenomena constitute a manifestation of white privilege, or what is its extent, and/or what are its effects. But since we (you and I) canât agree on whether it exists at all, we have nothing further to discuss on this score.
I appreciate your perspective, but I think you miss her point.
White privilege has nothing to do with âwhite folk making good decisions.â Rather, it stems from the creation of a hierarchical racial social structure in which white folk are the âapex race,â and black folk formed the sub-human lowest level. Once codified, this structure became self-perpetuatingâthat is, social advantages allowed more and more wealth to accrue to white folk; likewise, social disadvantages prevented wealth from accumulating among black folk. In turn, this wealth disparity led to a vicious cycle in black society: lack of intergenerational wealthâ>chronic intergenerational povertyâ>pathological social structuresâ>failure to achieve socioeconomic successâ>chronic intergenerational poverty. Additionally, the social aspects of the racial hierarchy (ie, enforced physical separation of the sub-human âcoloredâ from the whites) led to all sorts of social derangements and indignities endured by black folk, which in turn led to an entirely different set of culture-warping pathologies.
Her argument is that the white nuclear family serves as a vehicle by which the advantages of whiteness (eg, intergenerational wealth; educational/vocational opportunities) are passed from one generation of white folk to the next. In this way, the white nuclear family unwittingly (because know sane person gets married and has kids in a conscious effort to promote racism) serves to prop up the racist hierarchy, and to perpetuate white privilege.
OK, Iâm late for work. Iâm enjoying the discussion, and hope others are as well.
Says the guy comfortably participating in suppressing minorities. Have you also done something as racist as having a stable family or having either white or mixed race children?
You are a white male doctor for Godâs sake. If you actually believed half the nonsense you are supporting you should be quitting your job, divorcing your wife, abandoning your children, and probably committing suicide, because according to your ideology you are the source of all societal problems and are necessarily a racist bigot supporting white supremacy with your lifestyle.
White privilege is racist towards blacks. If you believe that an idea that encompasses all white people is true then you must believe itâs opposite: that all black people lack some sort of privilege. And if you believe that all black people live in the inner cities, are poor, uneducated (or at least less educated that whites), have dysfunctional families, are single mothers/deadbeat fathers, on welfare, etc., then you are ignorant and a racist.
These Marxists donât want to see people as individuals. They donât want individuals to even feel like individuals. The last thing they want is people thinking for themselves.
They are also using racism as a ploy to further their attacks on western culture. They donât care about black people. They just want to use them. Note how she complains about the âwhiteâ nuclear family, what does that even mean? There is the concept of the nuclear family but why qualify it with white? Black people donât have nuclear families? They arenât allowed to or are they incapable of it? Or are their nuclear families different? She mentions interracial families as also being troublesome. But she never mentions the black nuclear family. Why? Because she doesnât believe in the nuclear family for anyone, including black people. She wants the fragmentation of the family structure among black people to continue.
She doesnât want to help those black people in poverty, or anyone in poverty, to elevate themselves. She wants those who have risen to a certain socioeconomic status to be brought down. And it isnât just those who we could reasonably refer to as wealthy either; itâs also the middle class. In fact, it is mainly the middle class as the truly wealthy are beyond her grasp. Does she not think that given the proper opportunities that black people can rise out of poverty? She doesnât want them to. And again, not all black people live in poverty so for her to assume that all black people are âequalâ is a sign of her sheltered existence and racism.
And for those who insist on saying that white privilege exists: prove it beyond anecdotes. Yeah, white parents never tell their kids what to do if pulled over by the cops. This is some real lack of logic at work. The idea that cops shoot black kids because they donât behave âproperlyâ but donât shoot white kids because they do which means that black parents need to tell their kids how to behave is racist. No one thinks that maybe those white kids who are supposedly never getting shot by cops behaved properly because they were taught that? Again, that is racist thinking at work. White people naturally know how to behave properly but black people need to be taught.
Also, anyone who states that in their opinion something is a fact doesnât know what facts and opinions are. You will also notice that most of the white people who believe in white privilege embody the concept of white privilege. They assume that all whites must be like them, just as they believe all blacks are inner city cliches.
These people are the worst kind of racists. They donât believe that black people can achieve on the same level as whites unless white people are handicapped. I would not want her anywhere near my black kids because she would condition them to be victims who need the benevolent hand of Marx (a white man) to lead them to freedom from that horrible thing known as western culture, I mean, in their minds âwhite culture.â
And this is whatâs funny about our country right now: If someone says that being born black is a disadvantage it isnât racist but, if someone says that being born black is not a disadvantage he is ignorant and possibly a racist.
Individual circumstances matter, that is, if you care to look at people as individuals.
This isnât white privilege. It is white negligence. If I had a dime for every time me and my friends were pulled out of a car, shaken down and smacked around by the police, and thrown into a holding cell for âlooking suspiciousâ (and by suspicious I mean like Cheech and Chong buzzing down the road) Iâd have at least a dollar.
Then thereâs my older brother, who while handcuffed was beaten to a bloody pulp with a flashlight by a Norfolk VA. police officer. All for the crime of hanging out with some of his buddies knocking back beers in front of a 7/11 (and calling the cop a rubber badge and telling him to get back into his car)
If you want to argue that thereâs such a thing as being pulled over for âdriving while looking like a stoner,â I wonât argue with you. But that doesnât change the fact that being pulled over for DWB (driving while black) is a thing, but DWW (driving while white) is not.
Unfortunately statistics and research do not support this. Evidence indicates blacks just plain violate more traffic laws on average. There is equal disparity between whites and blacks in red light camera citations. Unless you are arguing motion sensors and automated cameras are racist⊠disparity<>discrimination.
I get run for warrants quite literally every single time I have any interaction with police. I donât even have to be driving. I have been checked for ID/warrants while literally sitting on the steps of a church in middle class suburbia, whose parking lot the townships police use as a convenient place to turn around.
We had a funny one a few years ago. Me and a friend were driving home from a local creek after a couple of hours of fishing. We drive by, cop follows. After about a mile, he lights us up. I ask why he pulled us over and he says something about my registration (which was up to date). I said âman, you must have some really good eyes to have seen thatâ to which he responds âYeah, weâre trained to look for certain things.â.
Meanwhile, fishing bud is on the phone with his father, one of the township supervisors, and it just so happens, head of the police department.
Suddenly, the officer gets called back to his car. He very politely returns my drivers licence and apologizes for any inconvenience.
Now if I were black, in any of these incidents I could easily have called the local news and thrown down the race card, made a big hullabaloo with the ACLU or any number of things because racists.
The simple fact of the matter is that police are trained to look for certain things, and take every opportunity to give someone a check up and hopefully catch a bad guy. Some people just have, as the police have told to me on many occasions, âThat Lookâ.
Driving while black, white, returning from fishing, waiting for the wife after an AA meetingâŠwhat ever.
Whether wealth disparities naturally grow or shrink through generations is a difficult thing to say definitively (there are examples of both), but there is obviously merit to the idea that inheritance laws benefit the children of rich people.
The problem with the argument is that weakening and attacking white nuclear families isnât a way to help non-white people. Itâs just envy knocking down everyone to the same level.
That may be. But âbeing whiteâ is not, of itself, part of That Look.
Not in this case. The evidence is overwhelming that a significant component of the current white-black wealth disparity in the US can be traced to our history of de jure and de facto institutional racism.
Thereâs more to it than that. The transfer of wealth from one generation to the next can play an essential role in allowing the younger generation to achieve financial independence and security. (Note that âtransfer of wealthâ need not mean handing over cash; it also includes things like providing for a good education, medical care, etc.) Thus, the youth from communities that are wealth-poor are at enormous disadavantage in this regardâthey are much less likely to achieve financial stability, and experience far greater wealth insecurity (eg, higher risk of bankruptcy owing to an unexpected medical issue, job loss, etc.) And when they in turn have no wealth to transfer to the next generation, the cycle continues.
If youâre referring to the assertions made by the prof, I think youâre misinterpreting her point.
No one would ever mistake me for anything else. Iâm pretty much the archetypal blue collar white guy, 5â9", 180 lb. (gotta change that) brown hair, hazel eyes white guy.
Its not like they look at my licence and go âOh! It says here youâre white. Sorry about that. Have a nice dayâŠâ.
BTW, this whole âtalkâ that EVERY black family has with their sons is made up. Not every black family has this talk. Not every black family even has to since some of them, believe it or not, raise their kids to know how to behave around other people.
When you see a black person, or any person, behaving like a moron, getting belligerent, escalating the confrontation, etc., with the police, chances are that person behaves like that with everyone.
Also, white people do get stopped by the police for being white. Itâs a very ignorant thing to think otherwise. The cliche is the black person getting pulled over in the white neighborhood but there is also the white person who gets stopped in the black neighborhood.
She doesnât care about helping non-whites. She only cares about hurting heterosexual white men. Read what she wrote: she is against the idea of the nuclear family regardless of race. Itâs just easier for someone with her limited intellect to use racism in her argument. As if the idea of the importance of family doesnât exist with people of color all around the world.
Itâs âself-evidentâ that Iâve misunderstood her?
Iâm not confused about what she means. My lack of understanding is âself-evident?â To who exactly? Iâm not intelligent enough to read and understand her tweets in context? I donât understand that sheâs parroting principles of bona fide Marxist theory? Or I donât understand that she seems to ascribe to it on a personal level? I donât understand that I lack the proper intellectual respect for her ability to parrot these ideologies?
Sheâs not teaching a class on Marxist theory from an intellectual perspective. Sheâs tweeting her world views on her twitter feed to her friends, complete with some emotional attachment, and disdain for people. The white nuclear family in particular is a social ill. She gives her emotions about it away with her âhow f-cking sacred the family isâ comment. She shows disdain for people who ascribe to the âworship of the sacredness of the family.â She doesnât sound like a detached intellectual in her tweets. Sheâs a Marxist going on a little emotional rant.
@ Her comment on marriage equality. Itâs too bad that gay people have bought into the system of capitalist oppression by getting married and often forming their own nuclear families if you will, which become vehicles of power and wealth distribution, often for their adopted or biological children. For Marxists/ Third Wave Feminists like her, LGBT marriages make it hard to portray marriage as a system of female oppression. So many LGBT couples seem to want the right to enter into these oppressive relationships. A lot of them are truly liberal people, who donât care much for Marxism, or authoritarian college professors.
I assume that she means exactly what she says. You should also assume that sheâs not merely inarticulate, but that sheâs likely an intelligent person who says exactly what she means. Her views on the world are anathema to me, from both a political and religious perspective. We can leave it at that.
You know who is stupid here? Conservatives and Classical Liberals who have been asleep at the wheel while wingding academics like this teach their 18-year-old kids their Marxist values, and then they seem surprised when theyâve paid upwards of $30,000 per year and their impressionable young adult comes home wearing a damn Che t-shirt. A lot of Conservatives and people who value Classically Liberal ideals are tired of it. Youâve consistently dismissed that, but itâs true.
They should. In the way I will one day have to have my wife (har) explain to my daughters why you donât leave your drink unattended in a bar, but if I had a son I wouldnât come close to bothering.
Not having that talk is just irresponsible parenting.
Maybe itâs the ~120k city miles I put on my car in ~5 years driving around the inner city in black neighborhoods talking, but this has never happened to me, nor to anyone Iâve ever known.
Hell yeah, they do. We used to get pulled over in the neighborhood that I used to go to to buy heroin. The cops would straight up tell us- âYou white kids are gonna get killed if you donât quit coming around here.â.
The funny thing about these new Marxists is that they hate the working class. They look down on all those uneducated âdeplorables.â She can complain about white privilege but in her Marxist Utopia she will get the benefit of intellectual/education privilege. Does anyone think that these Marxists, if they ever have kids, are going to raise them to work in factories or in a trade rather than go to college? She doesnât want equality, she wants to be in charge.
