My life of rainbows and sunshine (the fallacy)

[Spinozaad]

Why should I should I be judged for these traits?

Because you are being favoured for those traits whether you like it or not. Here and now, not in the dim misty past.

Again, whether or not it works it very different to whether or not there is a problem to begin with.

"I" (not necessarily myself, but the general Twenty-Something White Male in nondescript Western Democracy) am not the one who discriminates, I am the one who is discriminated against because females and "ethnicities" get preferential treatment by law based on gender, ethnicity or class rather than individual merit.

Yes, if positive discrimination laws were discarded, it is likely that other individuals would get the short end of the stick. That is a problem, but is categorically identical to "my" current position.

Merit ought to be the defining criterion. Not some misplaced notions of "balance".

 

[Angie7F]

I am a twenty something asian female and I dont feel that I have been discriminated before.
I think it is all in your mind....

 

[cookyy2k]

Ok, I may have phrased some things badly.

A lot of people here seem to think I'm denying any advantages... when I said

I'll admit that I have it easier than the "minority" groups as their is still bigotry out there.

I meant, I'll admit that I have it easier than the "minority" groups as their is still bigotry out there. I can see how some of you got confused and went accusing me of denying any privilege or bigotry still existing.

Also well done to those spotting the invisible text (because I didn't type or imply it) that said I completely understand how every minority feels and calling me out on it.

Now the rest of the first post should be obvious in its meaning but just in case I'll rephrase it, I have been told (in direct terms) I should be ashamed for being part of a demographic that has committed atrocities, it's not going to happen! I am not ashamed of being who I am, nor should I be.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Now the rest of the first post should be obvious in its meaning but just in case I'll rephrase it, I have been told (in direct terms) I should be ashamed for being part of a demographic that has committed atrocities, it's not going to happen! I am not ashamed of being who I am, nor should I be.

Care to give an example of one such scenario? Where has this happened? How often has it happened to you? How was it worded exactly?

I'm pretty damn white for one, and I've never been expected to feel ashamed about it. Nor do I know any white males engaged in humanitarian organisations who have had this experience. Not only did you not give an example, but your post sounded rather petulant, so I don't think it's surprising that most people inferred that you probably came across a certain way to make the people in these organisations hostile towards you.

 

[oreso]

The assumption that anyone has had an easy life because of their race, gender or orientation is obviously prejudicial. This says nothing about the suffering commonly experienced, but to assume that everyone's experience is the same is just silly.

If anyone says "You cannot talk, because of your privileged race, gender or orientation" then they are just as horrible to my mind as anyone else who says "You cannot talk, because of your unprivileged race, gender or orientation". Treating people equally means that we just shouldn't make judgements like this.

Look bud, you're a straight white male, so for starters, you're 90% less likely to be raped or beaten by a partner, you're not going to be targeted by like 80% of the groups who perpetrate hate crimes, you have an education, and you have a job.

There's quite a bit of evidence against the "90% less likely to be raped or beaten" claim. For example, an article from a UK study [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence] and a big aggregate study here [http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]. The exact figures are pretty controversial, so I wouldn't want to state anything with too much confidence here. Domestic violence is a complex issue, often with lots of mutual violence, lying and other problems on the side. How you conduct the study can effect the result massively.

There are some uncontroversial figures though, as a guy the OP has the following things to be "privileged" about compared to a woman in the same position in a developed country:

• 
  * He's expected to live about 5 years less, but in many territories he'll be expected to retire 5 years later.
  * He's four times more likely to commit suicide, and about ten times more likely to die because of his job.
  * He's between 8 and 10 times more likely to be homeless or go to prison.
  * If he ever goes to court, he'll receive a 60% tougher sentence for the same crime.
  * If he ever goes to family court, he has almost no hope of getting equal custody of his children.

But yep, these are statistical. They don't necessarily apply. It's no reason to applaud or dismiss someone.

Cheers!

 

[Phasmal]

* If he ever goes to family court, he has almost no hope of getting equal custody of his children.

I wish people would stop parroting this as if it is true.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

Men who go for custody are likely to get it, but often men do not go for custody.
There may be gendered societal expectations behind that, but lets not say he has no hope.

EDIT: I'm not saying these stats are perfect or that the general custody arrangements are perfect as they are, but I am saying that the idea that men have no hope is false.

 

[Devetta]

IF you feel the need to tell everyone how progressive you are, and that you're not part of the problem...you're probably part of the problem.

If you're part of whatever group that supports bigotry but you personally don't, you don't go telling victims of bigotry "Don't be mad at me, I'm one of the good ones", you tell the members of your group that do "you don't speak for me".

Your point reminds me of the argument between Stan and Token in South Park: With apologies to Jesse Jackson.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If anyone says "You cannot talk, because of your privileged race, gender or orientation" then they are just as horrible to my mind as anyone else who says "You cannot talk, because of your unprivileged race, gender or orientation". Treating people equally means that we just shouldn't make judgements like this.

That depends very much on context. Someone who is gay is almost certainly going to know more about the effects of homophobia than someone who is straight.

While people should be treated equally, that's very much not how it works as things stand, and ignoring this does not help.

(Having said this, if you run into someone that thinks Hollywood sci-fi movies are giving us coded messages, and that white people were put on this Earth by the space lizards to oppress black people...yeah, them you can ignore.)

 

[norashepard]

bah, scumbag ancestors haunting me to this very day, I'll never be special for being born a specific way.

Black people have their "black and proud" slogan, and they get applauded for their heroism in the face of dicrimination.
Gay people have their gay parade, a bonafide parade celebrating their sexuality.
Women get their "Girl power" and everybody cheers.

I'll never get my "straight parade", people roll their eyes at me when I say "man power" and GOD FORBID I ever say "white and proud.". >.>

Tell me you're joking. You don't need a straight parade because straight is already accepted and preferred. It's the norm. Gay pride was started (by black transwomen no less) to bring attention to the plight of a people oppressed. You don't need man power because you already have it in nearly ever facet of the law, and men have had it for all of history. You can say white and proud though. That's fine. Be proud of your culture. Just don't get mad at other people who are proud of theirs.

And the civil rights people who get praised for it? They aren't being praised for being black. They're being praised for standing up against an institution that can and has murdered them and their families. Has anyone ever attacked your family because you were white? Probably not, and even if they have I bet you a million dollars it hasn't happened every day for your entire life.

There is nothing wrong with being white and male and being proud of it. But it's silly to feel oppressed when other people want to feel and be treated as equal as you already are.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

You know why people bring it up that we are privileged (we= white middle class straight males). Because we keep telling these other groups that they don't have the problems they say they do.

How many people on this site have said "We got gender equality years ago, so now all feminists are pushing for special treatment". Or indeed "I don't see why people still go on about gay rights, they are basically equal anyway".

The fact of the matter is that when you're not in a disadvantaged group, it is really easy to not see any unfairness. When we are reminded to 'check our privilege' it's not saying we have no problems, or live a blessed life where everything is given to us, it is to remind us that just because we don't see the additional barriers others face (on account of them not facing us) doesn't mean they aren't there.

(also, obligatory pointing out that as citizens of 21st century developed economies, with access to the internet and enough leisure time to describe ourselves as 'gamers' we are all living much better lives than almost anyone who has ever lived.)

 

[oreso]

* If he ever goes to family court, he has almost no hope of getting equal custody of his children.

I wish people would stop parroting this as if it is true.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

Men who go for custody are likely to get it, but often men do not go for custody.
There may be gendered societal expectations behind that, but lets not say he has no hope.

EDIT: I'm not saying these stats are perfect or that the general custody arrangements are perfect as they are, but I am saying that the idea that men have no hope is false.

I'm sorry, yeah, I was stating too strongly there. I'm sure some fathers are successful.

And I admit I'm not really aware of the particular situation in the States, I only know of the Father's Rights movement in the UK [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers%27_rights_movement_in_the_UK] and my own unfortunate family experience, and I shouldn't generalise from that.

Cheers!

 

[danon]

Yeah i'm pretty sure this is because of the victim mentality pretty much every group seem to be full of these days. Society has never been better but people like to whine. Of course a lot of these groups have legitimate problems. it seems though that a majority of them wants people, especially the white straight male to shout from the rooftops of how sorry he is to exist, instead of fixing the problem.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

snippings

Of course it was mere jest, but over here, the Dutch Base law (our version of the amendments, I suppose) dictates that no citizen will be treated differently for their race, sexuality, gender, belief or political affiliation by anyone, be they employers, royalty or the law itself.
As a result, things like the gay parade more or less become a widespread holiday or festival, everybody is already cool with it, supporting minorities has basicly become an excuse just to party with 'em.

the joke is that being black, gay or female is quite inconsequential, and we might as well celebrate anything we're born with, even if it is the norm or not.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

*snip*

I was obviously exaggerating there, if only to make a point.
Do you obviously think that I bothered to do extensive research and go through tons of material just to point out a few things on a gaming forum?

Thanks for the info though, always good to learn some stuff periodically, even if I'm unlikely to use it anywhere practical.

Still, was just pointing out that the guy's moaning an awful lot over people assuming he has it easier than other people who do have it harder than him in a lot of ways/places.

Just pointing out that even though we straight white males sometimes do have it rough, from what he says, chances are a ton of us would trade an awful lot to be in his position.

*edited*

 

[Promethax]

While I think the concept of societal privilege has plenty of merit, it seems to me that a lot of people use it as an excuse to shame other people in order to make them feel better about themselves. I feel it's those kinds of people that are really devaluing discussion about race and sexuality.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

It's not that life is automatically a breeze for straight, white, middle-class men. It's that you generally don't experience oppression or bigotry based on your gender, race or sexual orientation. Apart from the kind of confrontations you listed above. Politics, high business positions, many professions, media, sports, movies, video games, etc... Are all dominated by and largely cater to your demographic.

Do you still have to work hard to get what you want? Of course! Can you experience prejudice based on other things, such as your social standing, sure. The defensive attitude from those groups comes from people who try to tell them that any prejudice they experience doesn't exist anymore or it isn't as bad as they think it is, that's where the resentment comes from.
You find it a lot online, where people will argue that they don't observe or experience bigotry or oppression, ergo it does not exist. This can cause the kind of attitudes that you experience within these groups.

There are assholes in every group out there and, unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the attitudes that are caused by their behaviour.

I was always curious about how prevalent this attitude was in Europe, because while what you said about might be true over here in the US, do you really think it applies equally so in Europe?
I mean your Irish, right? Given Ireland's history in the last 100 years, can you honestly say that being a white male allowed you to avoid oppression or bigotry? I mean it seems like the Troubles(yes I realize that is in Belfast) showed that being a white male didn't protect you from oppression or bigotry. Better yet, judging from this thread I made a while back about Glasglow football [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.385839-Green-vs-Blue-Celtics-vs-Rangers-Fenians-versus-Huns-and-Footbal-Violence-in-Glasgow#15352740], it seems as if being a white male hardly guaranteed that you wouldn't suffer oppression and bigotry. Another example that comes to mind is that I've had friends who were from the Baltic and if what they say is true, the level of ethnic hatred between Serbs and Croatians is far, far, far worse than anything a minority in America might face.

It seems that while what you said might be valid in the US, it certainly isn't reflective of the entire world.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

IF you feel the need to tell everyone how progressive you are, and that you're not part of the problem...you're probably part of the problem.

How is saying that you don't hate people with darker skin contributing to the hatred of people with darker skin? That makes no sense.

If you're part of whatever group that supports bigotry but you personally don't, you don't go telling victims of bigotry "Don't be mad at me, I'm one of the good ones", you tell the members of your group that do "you don't speak for me".

While I would agree that you should tell others that they don't speak for you, why should a person just allow misplaced hatred to be directed at them?

That is not what privilege means. Please understand what privilege means before getting angry about it. Privilege, and I am explaining this in the most layman terms I can, does not mean that your life is easier. It means that society has given you without your desire or consent a set of invisible tools and keys that you can use to your advantage. Imagine you want to get into a very exclusive club, so you get in line. When it's your turn, the doorman looks you over, sees that you're white/straight/male/cis/able-bodied/middle-or-upper-class/young/etc. and lets you in just because of that. It doesn't mean that you will have fun in the club. It means that you got in while someone else might not, because they didn't belong to the right group.

Being privileged is not your fault. You weren't asked if you wanted to be privileged or not. But you are. And that's what pisses people off, the denial of something that you are, turning a blind eye on people's legitimate plights because you can't accept the fact that you are just as much of a victim of society as every other marginalised person out there.

But this relies entirely on the premise that a person agrees with you that they even have privilege, which may not be the cause because this idea of privilege assumes that situations in the US are somehow reflective of the entire world.

That's why the only way to change things for the better is to change society as a whole, so that the next generations grow up with less prejudice.

And what about situations that don't reflect problems that occur in the US? What about the situations like the hatred that a great number of South Koreans have for Japanese people? How is it "chang[ing] things for the better" by telling South Koreans that they shouldn't be mad at the Japanese for comfort women, suppressing the Korean language/alphabet/names/identity and Japan's manipulation of their history books? How is it going to make things better for South Koreans by "changing" their society? It seems as if only the Japanese would have something to gain from such a "changed" society in South Korea.

They have just as much a right to be upset by your lack of empathy as you have to be unsympathetic in the first place.

No they don't, they don't have a right to harass me for not feeling as strongly about their cause as they do. I could think animal rights is an extremely important subject to support and focus on, but that doesn't mean I have a right to be hostile to you just because you might want to focus your attention on LGBT rights, and vice versa.

 

[Darken12]

But this relies entirely on the premise that a person agrees with you that they even have privilege, which may not be the cause because this idea of privilege assumes that situations in the US are somehow reflective of the entire world.

While you are right that privilege is a cultural matter and is therefore dependent on culture (which varies in space and time), it doesn't actually matter if the person agrees or not. Privilege is not something they control. It's not up to them. They can certainly wish they didn't have it, but they still have it. If other people treat them differently because they belong to a privileged group, they have privilege, whether they like it or not.

And what about situations that don't reflect problems that occur in the US? What about the situations like the hatred that a great number of South Koreans have for Japanese people? How is it "chang[ing] things for the better" by telling South Koreans that they shouldn't be mad at the Japanese for comfort women, suppressing the Korean language/alphabet/names/identity and Japan's manipulation of their history books? How is it going to make things better for South Koreans by "changing" their society? It seems as if only the Japanese would have something to gain from such a "changed" society in South Korea.

I would argue, from a philosophical (or ethical) point of view, that any instance where we diminish hatred and discrimination is a victory for all of humanity, not simply for the marginalised group in question.

But yes, there are instances where things are indeed more complicated than what I explained in layman's terms, but even then, that does not detract from or contradict my previous point.

No they don't, they don't have a right to harass me for not feeling as strongly about their cause as they do. I could think animal rights is an extremely important subject to support and focus on, but that doesn't mean I have a right to be hostile to you just because you might want to focus your attention on LGBT rights, and vice versa.

That's completely correct, they don't have a right to harass you. Please note that at no point did I say that people have a right to harass you, so you are saying "no, they don't" to something I never stated. They DO have a right to be annoyed at your lack of empathy, yes. You cannot deny people the right to have feelings. You are most certainly right that they those feelings do not give them the right to harass you, but you, in turn, have no right to expect them to accept or be okay with your lack of empathy. If you want to have the freedom to feel (or not feel) whatever you want, everyone has the same right and freedom too.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

While you are right that privilege is a cultural matter and is therefore dependent on culture (which varies in space and time), it doesn't actually matter if the person agrees or not. Privilege is not something they control. It's not up to them. They can certainly wish they didn't have it, but they still have it. If other people treat them differently because they belong to a privileged group, they have privilege, whether they like it or not.

I agree that the concept of privilege isn't subjective, but whether or not someone is getting "privilege" because of their race/sex/gender/religion/nationality can be a subjective assessment. For example, if a Asian-American man is applying to the same position as an Hispanic-American man and the Asian-American man gets the job, while it's possible that it was because of racism that the A.A. was hired, it could also be do to the fact that the A.A. graduated at the top of his class at the University of Berkeley while the H.A. has decent grades at an average college(though A.A. being good at school is a stereotype as well). So as I said, while I agree that there is the concept of privilege, it can be hard to determine when it comes into play.

I would argue, from a philosophical (or ethical) point of view, that any instance where we diminish hatred and discrimination is a victory for all of humanity, not simply for the marginalised group in question.

And I would agree that liberal ideas of morality are all well and good in the college classroom, but in regards to real life, the feelings of those who were systematically raped and then had their sexual attacks denied by the perpetrator being played down for some misguided sense of altruism isn't realistic nor is it moral. People in Serbia and Croatia are not going to gain a "victory" from having South Koreans suppress the feelings that their grandmothers have from being raped. Serbs and Croatians will still not like each other regardless of what South Koreans do.

But yes, there are instances where things are indeed more complicated than what I explained in layman's terms, but even then, that does not detract from or contradict my previous point.

Yes it does, it goes back to what I said about the US not representing everybody.

That's completely correct, they don't have a right to harass you. Please note that at no point did I say that people have a right to harass you, so you are saying "no, they don't" to something I never stated. They DO have a right to be annoyed at your lack of empathy, yes. You cannot deny people the right to have feelings. You are most certainly right that they those feelings do not give them the right to harass you, but you, in turn, have no right to expect them to accept or be okay with your lack of empathy. If you want to have the freedom to feel (or not feel) whatever you want, everyone has the same right and freedom too.

Well if they want to feel disrespected, that is fine. I won't tell them how to feel, just as long as they don't try to pressure me to care about their cause.