Poll: Privilege

[Thaluikhain]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

The bigot doing the hiring isn't in awe of my pale skin, they've got an irrational dislike/hatred of people with a certain skin colour.
You're making it out to be a direct 'benefit' when it isn't, it's just cause and effect.

If I were to hypothetically agree that your definition of privilege is correct for a moment, would privilege even be a bad thing? Would it even matter at all? It is after all just cause and effect from someone else being mistreated by someone else. Not to be mean or anything, but I've yet to see you mention the Group B in this, the bigots. This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people. You're holding them as some sort of arbiters of who gets privilege and who doesn't.

 

[g3ko]

Me being promoted/hired/listened to, isn't a privilege or an injustice.

No, but getting promoted/hired/listened to due to the colour of your skin (say) is. You are getting an undeserved benefit. This doesn't make it your fault, but is something that needs to be acknowledged.

I mean no disrespect to but into this discussion at this point, but the problem i have is your answer to this, particularly that "undeserved" word and where you chose to insert it into your response. I'd say it's undeserved for someone not to be listened to in a job, or whatever, everyone deserves to be heard out.

It seems that everyone is still focusing on the better that others have instead of getting it for themselves, they want the other group to not have it anymore. That neighbours goat quote comes to mind. I'd rather my neighbour not have a goat because i don't have one instead of going out and getting one myself.
The grass always seems greener on the other side, but this isn't the way to do it.

No mean to disrespect anyone, just my two cents.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Stupid Firefox ate my last response

The bigot doing the hiring isn't in awe of my pale skin, they've got an irrational dislike/hatred of people with a certain skin colour.
You're making it out to be a direct 'benefit' when it isn't, it's just cause and effect.

Of course it's a benefit. You are being viewed as superior to someone else. In large part, that's the reason why others are viewed as inferior, so that your own group is superior by contrast. It's not a coincidence that most people that hate group X are in some other group they feel is superior.

If I were to hypothetically agree that your definition of privilege is correct for a moment, would privilege even be a bad thing? Would it even matter at all?

Yes. If nothing else, it would still be unfair.

More to the point, though, privilege isn't a one off thing, it's something that pops up again and again and again, and tends to have a big impact on people with privilege. Spend your whole life being told that you are superior to another group of people, and consciously or not, you are likely to start believing it. Even if you are aware of the problem, it's still likely to be an issue.

Even if that isn't a problem, or at least not a large one, it is going to view the way you view certain things. For example, during the Occupy protests, white New Yorkers were (rightfully) upset at being harassed by police. Only, it was pointed out that black New Yorkers had been harassed by police for years. Police harassment just hadn't seemed a problem to many white people until they were getting a taste of it. They had the privilege of being white, so police harassment wasn't a thing they had to deal with the way black people did. So they didn't see it as that big a problem, but expected people to care when it happened to them.

This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people.

Why. Privilege doesn't exist without the privileged.

Also, define "bigoted people". Most (I'd say 100% but can't prove it) people are bigoted to some extent about some issues.

You're holding them as some sort of arbiters of who gets privilege and who doesn't.

Who does or doesn't get privilege is arbitrarily decided by society.

I mean no disrespect to but into this discussion at this point, but the problem i have is your answer to this, particularly that "undeserved" word and where you chose to insert it into your response. I'd say it's undeserved for someone not to be listened to in a job, or whatever, everyone deserves to be heard out.

It seems that everyone is still focusing on the better that others have instead of getting it for themselves, they want the other group to not have it anymore. That neighbours goat quote comes to mind. I'd rather my neighbour not have a goat because i don't have one instead of going out and getting one myself.
The grass always seems greener on the other side, but this isn't the way to do it.

Privilege is relative. You can't gain more without someone else losing. By comparison, not everyone can be a millionaire without being a millionaire becoming meaningless. You have to have lots of people with less for it to mean anything. It's not a privilege to have a goat unless there are other people that can't have one.

You have to take away privilege in order for there to be equality.

The other problem is that people who've lived their life with a privilege tend to see it as normal, just the way things are. Worse, the way things should be...after all, it's fine for them, why change it?

The Western world is mostly run by straight white guys. Imagine there was a series of elections tomorrow, and for some strange reason, it was mostly black lesbians that got in. There's plenty of people who'd totally say (and believe) that they aren't racist or sexist or homophobic who would freak the hell out over that. Hell, even just an equal proportion, with half women, single digits percentages of LGBT people and what proportion of those nations weren't white...that'd pose a massive problem for people who don't see equality as normal.

 

[Spearmaster]

Most of the privilege accusation I see are just stereotyping based on race, sex or sexual orientation anyway. Also by saying that strait white males are privileged we are stating that how they are treated is not the norm, that its above and beyond the norm of how all people should be treated when is reality that privilege is the target norm that all people are striving for thus making people not at that norm disadvantaged. It all has to do with where you place the bar for what is acceptable treatment of all people.

Privilege is something its normal to not have.

Disadvantage is not having something that is normal to have.

As a strait white male myself, if I am in fact privileged than minorities are treated normal. Then there is no problem. If there is a problem with how minorities are treated than I am not privileged, I am treated normal and minorities are disadvantaged.

...you have to pick one, you cant have it both ways.

 

[MeatMachine]

I have an incredibly unpopular opinion: I don't believe in equality.

Before I get burned at the stake for saying that, I'd like to clarify WHY I don't believe in equality.

I do not thing human beings are naturally capable of it. Kind of like communism: in theory, it may seem like a great idea, but it simply does not work in practice.

There are some varying degrees towards every circumstance, of course, and typically, I will [TRY] not to award any more or less respect to someone based off of gender, sexuality, skin color, nationality, interests, political views, religious views, or any overt trait of limited control that tend to be the least interesting thing about people (I am a straight, white, libertarian athiest American male - those are literally the most boring things about me, yet somehow the most important traits that determine how people approach and treat me).

Gender, for example. I do not treat women the same way I treat men. I don't hold any beliefs in one gender being intrinsically superior to the other, but I certainly don't treat them the same way. Neither do you. No one does. Sometimes, when I am going to go on a drive with someone, I'll open the passenger door for a female if I am going to be driving. Chivalrous, right? I will not do this for a man. Why? Because it doesn't convey the same message of respect towards a man as it does towards a woman. Is that sexism? Am I the sexist for doing it, or is the person I am doing it for sexist for (if it's a woman accepting special treatment or (if it's a man cocking an eyebrow and wondering if I am a homosexual sending passive messages? Is that wrong? Is that bad? Should I change that, and begin doing it for both genders, or neither? Why?

Separate but equal doesn't really work. I don't deny that being a straight, white, libertarian, athiest American male puts me at certain situational advantages within my culture, but to flatly rank me as "having more privilage" than someone of differing traits is inherently foolish and wrong.

Being a man in the US has its benefits and its drawbacks. Higher average wages? Maybe. Almost certain to lose custody of children following a divorce? Maybe.

Being a woman in the US has its benefits and its drawbacks. Not quite as safe walking home alone on a dark night? Maybe. Not being forcibly registered into selective service on your 18th birthday? Maybe.

Identifying certain combinations of traits as "having an easier life" than other traits is moronic cherry-picking, as each and every one of them has its own advantages and hardships. The only way this will ever change is if we model our society off of that of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

--

On one final note, however, I do think that it is important to address trait-centric problems and suggest that, as a cultural whole, we work on improving them. In spite of everything I already said, I would like to create a world where the negative interactions between people of differing traits are minimized, but as far as I can tell, most proponents of this ideology inevitably break down into squabbling line-drawers that only further divide the community.

 

[MeatMachine]

In response to OP's poll, I actually said OP is incorrect, even though I actually agree with everything he said. HOWEVER, the reason why I stated he is incorrect is because of his deliberate choice in his key word:

Rights, as opposed to privilages.

To quote George Carlin (not exact, just vague recollection), "Nobody has any rights. They're a wonderful imaginary thought, kind of like the tooth fairy, or God. If people can take your rights away, they are not rights - they are privilages".

I am the first to raise my hand and call bullshit on the pretense of "having more privilage" than people of other genders/races/religions etc., but no one has the "right" to a loving, accepted family. No one has the "right" to have their trans-gender otherkin sexuality respected and not looked down upon and ostracized by the majority of people who do not understand, or even CARE to understand them. Gays do not have the "right" to be portrayed in a positive light by pop-culture, and guests on FOX News do not have the "right" to not be torn apart by their angry, stupid, cynical, sensationalist and emotional hosts.

Better people can look past those differences and work to improve themselves to become better people.
Lesser people are going to continue to be lesser people and shit on those that they don't like, and no amount of entitlement, legally or morally, is going to change that.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

It's the whole "us vs. them" mentality. You single out an enemy and then rally people against it.

It's easier to generate support by demonizing the white patriarchy with ideas like "check your privilege" and "THEY're holding us back" than by trying to generate sympathy/empathy for those who are victims of discrimination.

It's easier to rally people with a demand for social justice (which taps into a person's sense of what they feel they deserve for themselves) than it is to rally people to the cause of ending social INjustice (which deals more with trying to see something from someone else's perspective).

It's all semantics I suppose, but I do agree.

Good luck changing the terminology though. The idea of fighting against privilege is so ingrained in minority groups seeking to right the wrongs of discrimination (and, in case it isn't clear, they are right to do so!) runs so deep that shifting the paradigm is unlikely.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Stupid Firefox ate my last response

The bigot doing the hiring isn't in awe of my pale skin, they've got an irrational dislike/hatred of people with a certain skin colour.
You're making it out to be a direct 'benefit' when it isn't, it's just cause and effect.

Of course it's a benefit. You are being viewed as superior to someone else. In large part, that's the reason why others are viewed as inferior, so that your own group is superior by contrast. It's not a coincidence that most people that hate group X are in some other group they feel is superior.

Correction, I am being viewed superior to someone else, BY someone else.

This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people.

Why. Privilege doesn't exist without the privileged.

And neither exist without bigots (going off the definition we're using for the sake of this argument).

When you say my group is viewed as superior, you're missing a step. My group is viewed as superior by SOMEONE. This is what I'm driving at. You've been dodging around who's doing the viewing, who's doing the discriminating. Privilege isn't a problem, the people creating the problems, the bigots, are. And so is the undue strife and discrimination they spread.

If I were to hypothetically agree that your definition of privilege is correct for a moment, would privilege even be a bad thing? Would it even matter at all?

Yes. If nothing else, it would still be unfair.

More to the point, though, privilege isn't a one off thing, it's something that pops up again and again and again, and tends to have a big impact on people with privilege. Spend your whole life being told that you are superior to another group of people, and consciously or not, you are likely to start believing it. Even if you are aware of the problem, it's still likely to be an issue.

Even if that isn't a problem, or at least not a large one, it is going to change the way you view certain things. For example, during the Occupy protests, white New Yorkers were (rightfully) upset at being harassed by police. Only, it was pointed out that black New Yorkers had been harassed by police for years. Police harassment just hadn't seemed a problem to many white people until they were getting a taste of it. They had the privilege of being white, so police harassment wasn't a thing they had to deal with the way black people did. So they didn't see it as that big a problem, but expected people to care when it happened to them.

First off, people can make their own decisions. As can I when I choose not to believe the person saying "white is right, burn the niggers". And no, bigots spouting crap will not make me start subconsciously believing it. I'm gonna walk around nodding my head to someone saying "white power".

With this second part I'm not sure what you're saying. People shouldn't care if they face police harassment because they're white? And when you say they only cared when they were getting a taste of it, do you mean they didn't care about minorities getting harassed?
Not to mention the phrase 'the privilege of being white' is a bit dubious.

This particular idea of privilege centers solely around bigoted people.

Also, define "bigoted people". Most (I'd say 100% but can't prove it) people are bigoted to some extent about some issues.

People who say "you can't be an electrician, you're a woman!", or "I don't hire black people, they're thieves".

You're holding them as some sort of arbiters of who gets privilege and who doesn't.

Who does or doesn't get privilege is arbitrarily decided by society.

A) Society doesn't decide, bigots do
B) If it's arbitrary, then why does it matter!?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also by saying that strait white males are privileged we are stating that how they are treated is not the norm, that its above and beyond the norm of how all people should be treated when is reality that privilege is the target norm that all people are striving for thus making people not at that norm disadvantaged. It all has to do with where you place the bar for what is acceptable treatment of all people.

No, something is only a privilege when not everyone has it. You can't make everyone privileged, get rid of inequality an you get rid of the privilege. Straight white males are privileged not simply because of how much they have, but by the fact that they have more, and generally, this is seen as the right and proper way to do things.

When you say my group is viewed as superior, you're missing a step. My group is viewed as superior by SOMEONE. This is what I'm driving at. You've been dodging around who's doing the viewing, who's doing the discriminating. Privilege isn't a problem, the people creating the problems, the bigots, are. And so is the undue strife and discrimination they spread.

Yes, someone has to be viewing for something to be viewed. That's sorta implicit.

Yes, privilege is caused by bigotry (not just the way you define it later, though)...so? Doesn't stop it being a serious problem.

For that matter, privilege causes bigotry.

First off, people can make their own decisions. As can I when I choose not to believe the person saying "white is right, burn the niggers". And no, bigots spouting crap will not make me start subconsciously believing it. I'm gonna walk around nodding my head to someone saying "white power".

So, you are totally immune to the influences that affect everyone else, and living in a society full of inequalities hasn't affected you in any way? Cause I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is.

Now, sure, you, like most people, aren't going to go round wearing white robes and burning crosses, but that doesn't mean that you and I and everyone else can't learn unhealthy messages about black people. If, for some reason, tomorrow, the leaders of finance, politics, industry and so on were PoC, if TV and movies were to be dominated by PoC, with white people being relegated to mostly token roles, wouldn't that seem stranger to you than the other way around? Because it would to me. Intellectually, I might know better, but it would seem somehow wrong and confronting.

With this second part I'm not sure what you're saying. People shouldn't care if they face police harassment because they're white? And when you say they only cared when they were getting a taste of it, do you mean they didn't care about minorities getting harassed?

People shouldn't view police harassment as only suddenly being a problem when it is happening to them. Many (not all, but many) were content to ignore the problem so long as only black people were being affected. They had no reason to care, because it wasn't something they had to deal with. When that changed, they expected people to be concerned in exactly the same way they weren't. They didn't expect their concerns to be ignored the way they'd ignored those of black people. Their harassment somehow mattered more.

People who say "you can't be an electrician, you're a woman!", or "I don't hire black people, they're thieves".

And what about the people that "just happen" to always hire male electricians, or never hire black people, without stating bigotry as the overt reason?

You don't need people to say "I won't hire black people". If you get lots of people that see black people as less worthy, then black people won't be hired. Which is going to encourage more people to see them as less worthy. And they'd often not even admit to themselves that they are bigots. The people that start sentences with "I'm not racist, but" probably believe it. They might not be KKK-style racist, but that's set the bar rather low.

A) Society doesn't decide, bigots do
B) If it's arbitrary, then why does it matter!?

Society doesn't magically exclude everyone with bigotry. More or less nobody would be left if it did. And "why does it matter"? How can it not matter? It matters because it's very unfair, and causes all sorts of social problems.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Sorry to but in with your conversation with spearmaster, but you've said something really confusing.

No, something is only a privilege when not everyone has it. You can't make everyone privileged, get rid of inequality an you get rid of the privilege. Straight white males are privileged not simply because of how much they have, but by the fact that they have more, and generally, this is seen as the right and proper way to do things.

By the fact they have more, as in material things as well? Someone will always have more than someone else. That's just a fact. Unless the human race becomes a hivemind and universally accepts communism as the one true god then this version of privilege will never disappear.

Yes, someone has to be viewing for something to be viewed. That's sorta implicit.
Yes, privilege is caused by bigotry (not just the way you define it later, though)...so? Doesn't stop it being a serious problem.
For that matter, privilege causes bigotry.

The only cause of bigotry is ignorance and small-mindedness, not privilege.
And I'm not just saying privilege is caused by bigotry, I'm saying whether it waxes or wanes, depends entirely on bigotry.

People shouldn't view police harassment as only suddenly being a problem when it is happening to them. Many (not all, but many) were content to ignore the problem so long as only black people were being affected. They had no reason to care, because it wasn't something they had to deal with. When that changed, they expected people to be concerned in exactly the same way they weren't. They didn't expect their concerns to be ignored the way they'd ignored those of black people. Their harassment somehow mattered more.

So how many of the Wall St protesters are you saying are ok with black people being harassed by cops?

So, you are totally immune to the influences that affect everyone else, and living in a society full of inequalities hasn't affected you in any way? Cause I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is.

Now, sure, you, like most people, aren't going to go round wearing white robes and burning crosses, but that doesn't mean that you and I and everyone else can't learn unhealthy messages about black people. If, for some reason, tomorrow, the leaders of finance, politics, industry and so on were PoC, if TV and movies were to be dominated by PoC, with white people being relegated to mostly token roles, wouldn't that seem stranger to you than the other way around? Because it would to me. Intellectually, I might know better, but it would seem somehow wrong and confronting.

Yes it would seem strange for such a sudden change because it's been the other way around since the founding of this country.
It wouldn't be strange because I've subconsciously learned racist messages, but because It's been the other way round for a vastly long time.
Everyone is affected by the attempted influence of different things around them in society. Whether we concede to them or pave our own way is our own choice. I choose not to be influenced by bigoted rhetoric, therefore I am not. I doubt I'm the only one. I bet there's plenty.

And what about the people that "just happen" to always hire male electricians, or never hire black people, without stating bigotry as the overt reason?

You don't need people to say "I won't hire black people". If you get lots of people that see black people as less worthy, then black people won't be hired. Which is going to encourage more people to see them as less worthy. And they'd often not even admit to themselves that they are bigots. The people that start sentences with "I'm not racist, but" probably believe it. They might not be KKK-style racist, but that's set the bar rather low.

The first example can be explained by the vast majority of electricians being male, The answer to the second example is probably that they are bigoted (assuming there are plenty of black people applying while a position is open).
You don't have to say you're a bigot to act like one.

Society doesn't magically exclude everyone with bigotry. More or less nobody would be left if it did. And "why does it matter"? How can it not matter? It matters because it's very unfair, and causes all sorts of social problems.

A) Nowhere did I say society excludes everyone with bigotry. I have no idea where you got that.
B) If privilege is a measuring tool to compare who has what and who doesn't, then everyone is privileged. You could call it unfair, but absolutely nothing humanity does can eliminate it beyond mass suicide. Unless you want to start applying it to other life forms as well. Then goodluck.
.

We seem to have gone off-topic. Probably my fault since I've gone the "let's assume that this is correct" tact. I would suggest go back to discussing the original disagreement of whether not being chocked to death by cops is a right or a privilege, but I really don't think there's going to be much yielding from either of us, and I think we've ground it right down to the basic disagreement. The only thing we can do now is argue over the definitions of the words right and privilege. Also this has been going on for days.

So, shall we shake hands and agree to disagree?

P.S. Sorry if this has come off barbed or aggressive, it's late and I'm extremely tired and stinking hot.

 

[chikusho]

To not have your rights questioned or trampled upon sounds like an immense privilege to me.

 

[maneyan]

Hmmm... I think this is a matter of "six of one, half a dozen of another". The exact semantics are irrelevant, what matters is the fact that some groups lack the advantages other groups have. Rights are only rights if they're applied to everyone, otherwise they're privileges so I, when it comes down ot it, would say 'no'. Not a bad question though. It bears thinking about.

 

[Akjosch]

To not have your rights questioned or trampled upon sounds like an immense privilege to me.

Seems like a privilege very few humans have. I don't know of anyone (children and most adolescents excluded) who didn't at some point have to fight for one of their rights.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To not have your rights questioned or trampled upon sounds like an immense privilege to me.

Seems like a privilege very few humans have. I don't know of anyone who didn't at some point have to fight for one of their rights.

That is an important point, everyone has some privileges or other. However, people tend to have their rights trampled on for different reasons. A depressing amount of people who (quite rightfully) want to reduce the rights being trampled on tend not to concern themselves with reasons for trampling that don't affect them.

 

[NeutralStasis]

I agree with the OP argument, if the situation is contextual. I have been followed, stopped and questioned by the police quite a lot. (typically a few times per month) I have been told at medical clinics that they do not provide narcotics. When I asked why they told me this, it was alluded to that it was my southern accent...southern = meth head I guess. I have been followed by staff at stores and incorrectly accused of shoplifting. The latest occurrence of this was yesterday. I have been passed on promotion because of factors out of my control (i.e. race, gender..ect) and they hire people who are far less qualified.

The idea that if you work hard and follow the rules (laws and such) that you will be able to make a good life for yourself is becoming more of a lie every day. My wife and I have worked our asses off. Put ourselves through college (both of us are first generation students with families operating just at the poverty line) and I even went on to do post graduate work. Since then, we have worked in our professions and been willing to do what we need to do for our careers. For example, we have moved all over the country in the last 12 years to find jobs that might make our ability to move up easier. We finally decided to have a child in our 30s and now want to be able to settle down a bit. Both of us are making far less than is appropriate for our educational and experience levels. Both have been passed by on promotions because we did not fill "certain criteria" for the position that exists outside of actual listed qualifications. Finally, we are told how "privileged" we are regularly.

All I see anyone talking about is the macro-level arguments of inclusion and diversity. This makes a great deal of sense, but it also ignores the mezzo and micro level events that people experience. It can also start to create some generalizations that are counter productive for change to take place.

I do, however like the idea of rights over privilege. I do not understand the willingness of some people to create laws to prohibit the rights of others. It is idiocy and arrogance. For example, the right to marry. Why the hell is this still a conversation that we are having in 2014? I can think of nothing more than the arrogance of others to try to control people whom they do not agree. These things should be rights.

I know I will get a lot of hate for what I put above and be told that I am just complaining, but my experience is undoubtedly not unique. I agree that there are a lot of privileged people out there. But the context of the situation must be taken into account before generalizations are used. Otherwise it just serves to further divide people.

 

[JarinArenos]

The OP reminds me strongly of people speaking against racism by citing their "colorblindness". Yeah, sure, it's a great ideal and all, but it has little bearing on the reality we live in, and the attitude behind it mostly just serves as a sop to let the person ignore issues that still exist. I have yet to see someone speak against the term "privilege" doing so as anything but a deflection against talking about those "disadvantaged" of yours.

Yes, all these privileges SHOULD be rights afforded to everyone. Absolutely. I agree 100%. But the term "disadvantaged" is one with a history of being attached to people who just get ignored. See also: "disadvantaged students", related issue. Pointing out that people are privileged not to have to deal with that shit on a daily basis brings it home that they are part of the system that disadvantages people, whether they like it or not.

 

[Obama's Dad 420]

I've got white privilege and I like it. If you want my privileges you're going to have to pry them from my cold dead white hands, darkies.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

When I first started reading your post I expected it to be another denial of the existence of privilege, glad to see it wasn't. And you know what? I completely agree with you. I think that's what makes people get so upin arms when they hear it used. It gives the impression that you have something you don't deserve as opposed to you having something that everybody deserves.

In any case, I don't think the word is at all productive. All it ever seems to do is make the people you want to reach with it jump on the defensive. It doesn't cause them to ask themselves "What difficulties are X people facing throughout their everyday life that I don't?", it just makes them recall every negative aspect of their life that they think they should feel "privileged" to have.

 

[Spearmaster]

Also by saying that strait white males are privileged we are stating that how they are treated is not the norm, that its above and beyond the norm of how all people should be treated when is reality that privilege is the target norm that all people are striving for thus making people not at that norm disadvantaged. It all has to do with where you place the bar for what is acceptable treatment of all people.

No, something is only a privilege when not everyone has it. You can't make everyone privileged, get rid of inequality an you get rid of the privilege. Straight white males are privileged not simply because of how much they have, but by the fact that they have more, and generally, this is seen as the right and proper way to do things.

...What? I'm assuming by the "No" that you are disagreeing with my statement but within the bulk of your response I cant see where you actually addressed any of it. Isn't "more" just another measure of how much they have anyway? Like I said it all has to do with where you place the bar for normal human treatment. Do you want everyone brought up to the strait white male level of treatment or strait white males to be brought down. Both will achieve this equality fantasy I keep hearing about.