White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[ZiprHead]

No. I'm saying according to the tenets of DiAngelo's philosophy there was.

Citations? Because the quote you posted above doesn't cut it.

If that is not sufficient for you, nothing will be.

Jarhyn's already dissected that quote and displayed quite succinctly why it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

Having read some of her work, and having listened to and read transcripts of interviews with her... I'm pretty sure it means exactly what Metaphor thinks it means.

Jarhyn's already shown quite well that the quote doesn't mean what both you and metaphor think it means.

You seem to know DiAngelo's work. Personally I've never heard of her before. So far, the case you and metaphor have provided here has come up short. Perhaps you can provide a better quote?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

Yes, an awful lot of supposedly anti-racist stuff is actually basically saying blacks are inferior and need the white man's help to survive in society.

 

[Trausti]

Here's an interesting review of the book, as well as DiAngelo's entire premise, written by a black man.

The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility
The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people.

White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.

Yes, an awful lot of supposedly anti-racist stuff is actually basically saying blacks are inferior and need the white man's help to survive in society.

Yep.

Black Fragility?

White Fragility has two unstated assumptions about nonwhite people in general, and black people in particular. The first is that we are a homogenous mass of settled opinion with little, if any, diversity of thought—a kind of CRT-aligned hive mind. I could marshal all the opinion polls in the world to refute this calumny, but it wouldn’t move DiAngelo an inch. She needs nonwhites to think as a unit, or else her thesis falls apart. How could she tell whites to shut up and listen to the consensus view of nonwhites if that consensus doesn’t exist?

The second unstated assumption in White Fragility—and this is where the book borders on actual racism—is that black people are emotionally immature and essentially child-like. Blacks, as portrayed in DiAngelo’s writing, can neither be expected to show maturity during disagreement nor to exercise emotional self-control of any kind. The hidden premise of the book is that blacks, not whites, are too fragile.

 

[ruby sparks]

On the other hand, some of her stuff is so incoherently bizarre that I end up giggling:

I make my living from my long term work in antiracist education. I would offer that those who do not make their living from antiracist work are financially benefitting from systemic racism.

This is her counterargument to the fact that she makes a LOT of money as a white person, lecturing about antiracism... and how racist white people are. It also seems to be her rationalization for why she doesn't donate her earnings until it "hurts", despite that being her explicit recommendation for something white people need to do in order to alleviate their white supremacist ways.

She actually said that?

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, some of her stuff is so incoherently bizarre that I end up giggling:

I make my living from my long term work in antiracist education. I would offer that those who do not make their living from antiracist work are financially benefitting from systemic racism.

This is her counterargument to the fact that she makes a LOT of money as a white person, lecturing about antiracism... and how racist white people are. It also seems to be her rationalization for why she doesn't donate her earnings until it "hurts", despite that being her explicit recommendation for something white people need to do in order to alleviate their white supremacist ways.

She actually said that?

It's in her "I'm superior to you FAQ accountability" page.

 

[ruby sparks]

She actually said that?

It's in her "I'm superior to you FAQ accountability" page.

Eek.

I also note that on that page she strongly defends herself against accusations that she 'scrubbed' parts of her accountability page when The Washington Free Beacon (I am not familiar with that newspaper or its reputation) began to look into her list of people and organisations that she said she donated to.

"But when the Washington Free Beacon began contacting the organisations she listed as recipients of her largesse, DiAngelo scrubbed the site, removing their names and the dates of her giving from the public domain—a version of the page remains available through the Internet Archive after briefly being unavailable due to what the site said were technical issues. The page was edited again as recently as Friday, when DiAngelo wrote she would begin donating 15 percent of her after-tax income, "in cash and in-kind donations," starting next month—suggesting she had not previously..."

https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-wages-of-woke-2/

I don't know what to make of that. But people like her can draw unfair criticism (and untruths) as well as fair criticism. I would not necessarily believe the Beacon's version and not hers.

It was also said in that newspaper article that her own various accounts of having experienced extreme childhood poverty involve some contradictions.

"DiAngelo has presented herself as a classic American rags-to-riches story, offering vivid details of a childhood spent in profound poverty. Those details are not always consistent—in a 2006 paper, for example, DiAngelo claims she "left home as a teenager and struggled to survive," seeing "no path out of poverty other than education." But in a recent New York Times interview, DiAngelo claimed to have run away from home but says she "didn’t get far," and she didn’t enroll in college until she was in her mid-30s. Neither of DiAngelo’s sisters responded to requests for comment."

It could all be character assassination though. I mean, journalistic standards do vary, she is arguably the sort of figure that some would like to character assassinate, because her ideas are challenging and controversial and to many, unpalatable.

But given all that's come up lately in the thread, including her reported wealth and apparently having 4 (although some reports say only 3) homes, I admit I am leaning slightly more towards possible outright hypocrisy, and possibly avarice too. That said, certain matters are unconfirmed. For all we know, she may have taken the fee cited in the OP and given a chunk of it to what she considers good causes. I would not rush to judge outright in the absence of knowing all the facts, but my suspicion radar is flashing a bit.

And on a separate note, I'm more convinced now that some of her ideas are a bit more ott than I might have thought from reading her 2012 article on White Fragility (posted earlier). Perhaps her direction has shifted in some ways since then. I don't know. Maybe she has jumped on her own bandwagon a bit. If she's ended up, for whatever reasons, over-egging her case, it's a pity, because I definitely do still think the core idea (White Fragility) is a thing, and worth exploring and discussing.

 

[ZiprHead]

She actually said that?

It's in her "I'm superior to you FAQ accountability" page.

Eek.

I also note that on that page she strongly defends herself against accusations that she 'scrubbed' parts of her accountability page when The Washington Free Beacon (I am not familiar with that newspaper or its reputation) began to look into her list of people and organisations that she said she donated to.

"But when the Washington Free Beacon began contacting the organisations she listed as recipients of her largesse, DiAngelo scrubbed the site, removing their names and the dates of her giving from the public domain—a version of the page remains available through the Internet Archive after briefly being unavailable due to what the site said were technical issues. The page was edited again as recently as Friday, when DiAngelo wrote she would begin donating 15 percent of her after-tax income, "in cash and in-kind donations," starting next month—suggesting she had not previously..."

https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-wages-of-woke-2/

I don't know what to make of that. But people like her can draw unfair criticism (and untruths) as well as fair criticism. I would not necessarily believe the Beacon's version and not hers.

It was also said in that newspaper article that her own various accounts of having experienced extreme childhood poverty involve some contradictions.

"DiAngelo has presented herself as a classic American rags-to-riches story, offering vivid details of a childhood spent in profound poverty. Those details are not always consistent—in a 2006 paper, for example, DiAngelo claims she "left home as a teenager and struggled to survive," seeing "no path out of poverty other than education." But in a recent New York Times interview, DiAngelo claimed to have run away from home but says she "didn’t get far," and she didn’t enroll in college until she was in her mid-30s. Neither of DiAngelo’s sisters responded to requests for comment."

It could all be character assassination though. I mean, journalistic standards do vary, she is arguably the sort of figure that some would like to character assassinate, because her ideas are challenging and controversial and to many, unpalatable.

But given all that's come up lately in the thread, including her wealth and having 4 (although some reports say only 3) homes, I admit I am leaning slightly more towards possible outright hypocrisy, and possibly avarice too. That said, certain matters are unconfirmed. For all we know, she may have taken the fee cited in the OP and given a chunk of it to what she considers good causes. I would not rush to judge outright in the absence of knowing all the facts, but my suspicion radar is flashing a bit.

And on a separate note, I'm more convinced now that some of her ideas are a bit more ott than I might have thought from reading her 2012 article on White Fragility (posted earlier). Perhaps her direction has shifted in some ways since then. I don't know. Maybe she has jumped on her own bandwagon a bit.

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

 

[Metaphor]

Eek.

I also note that on that page she strongly defends herself against accusations that she 'scrubbed' parts of her accountability page when The Washington Free Beacon (I am not familiar with that newspaper or its reputation) began to look into her list of people and organisations that she said she donated to.

"But when the Washington Free Beacon began contacting the organisations she listed as recipients of her largesse, DiAngelo scrubbed the site, removing their names and the dates of her giving from the public domain—a version of the page remains available through the Internet Archive after briefly being unavailable due to what the site said were technical issues. The page was edited again as recently as Friday, when DiAngelo wrote she would begin donating 15 percent of her after-tax income, "in cash and in-kind donations," starting next month—suggesting she had not previously..."

https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-wages-of-woke-2/

I don't know what to make of that. But people like her can draw unfair criticism (and untruths) as well as fair criticism. I would not necessarily believe the Beacon's version and not hers.

It was also said in that newspaper article that her own various accounts of having experienced extreme childhood poverty involve some contradictions.

"DiAngelo has presented herself as a classic American rags-to-riches story, offering vivid details of a childhood spent in profound poverty. Those details are not always consistent—in a 2006 paper, for example, DiAngelo claims she "left home as a teenager and struggled to survive," seeing "no path out of poverty other than education." But in a recent New York Times interview, DiAngelo claimed to have run away from home but says she "didn’t get far," and she didn’t enroll in college until she was in her mid-30s. Neither of DiAngelo’s sisters responded to requests for comment."

It could all be character assassination though. I mean, journalistic standards do vary, she is arguably the sort of figure that some would like to character assassinate, because her ideas are challenging and controversial and to many, unpalatable.

But given all that's come up lately in the thread, including her wealth and having 4 (although some reports say only 3) homes, I admit I am leaning slightly more towards possible outright hypocrisy, and possibly avarice too. That said, certain matters are unconfirmed. For all we know, she may have taken the fee cited in the OP and given a chunk of it to what she considers good causes. I would not rush to judge outright in the absence of knowing all the facts, but my suspicion radar is flashing a bit.

And on a separate note, I'm more convinced now that some of her ideas are a bit more ott than I might have thought from reading her 2012 article on White Fragility (posted earlier). Perhaps her direction has shifted in some ways since then. I don't know. Maybe she has jumped on her own bandwagon a bit.

View attachment 30595
View attachment 30596

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

Wow what a turnaround DiAngelo isn't a hypocrite now at all I take everything back

 

[ruby sparks]

Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

Ok so apparently not the most reliable or neutral source. That's useful to know.

 

[ruby sparks]

Wow what a turnaround DiAngelo isn't a hypocrite now at all I take everything back

Hypothetically, she may have donated (or be donating) decent chunks of her profits to the causes she identifies. Which, if true, would dilute accusations of hypocrisy considerably.

Personally, now that I've read more of her own statements, I think we'd still be left with an over-egged thesis, of the sort that turns me off no matter what it's about or from what direction of the socio-political spectrum it comes. As I said previously, John McWhorter's 'black victimology' thesis is arguably as bad, in terms of its crude over-simplifications, in the other direction, though I hear he is somewhat the darling of the conservatives, and their go-to 'black voice', for having it.

If I hear that 'White Fragility' was an Oprah Winfrey book recommendation.....that'll potentially put the tin hat on it for me.

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 30595
View attachment 30596



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

Wow what a turnaround DiAngelo isn't a hypocrite now at all I take everything back

I'll just leave you to your own humiliation.

 

[J842P]

As I said previously, John McWhorter's 'black victimology' thesis is arguably as bad, in terms of its crude over-simplifications, in the other direction

What are the oversimplifications in McWhorter's response that are arguably as bad?

 

[Emily Lake]

If that is not sufficient for you, nothing will be.

Jarhyn's already dissected that quote and displayed quite succinctly why it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I can only assume you're referring to this:

Yeah, like, suspect doesn't mean "damning" it means "I need to observe this with a critical eye, full of doubt".

That isn't a dissection and confirmation of intent. That's Jarhyn's assumption of benign intent based on a single snippet of information. If you read some of her work, or even checked out her website, you might find that Jarhyn's assumption is unlikely to capture DiAngelo's perspective.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think DiAngelo's quote means what you think it means.

Having read some of her work, and having listened to and read transcripts of interviews with her... I'm pretty sure it means exactly what Metaphor thinks it means.

Jarhyn's already shown quite well that the quote doesn't mean what both you and metaphor think it means.

You seem to know DiAngelo's work. Personally I've never heard of her before. So far, the case you and metaphor have provided here has come up short. Perhaps you can provide a better quote?

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.

Yet you're still extremely confident that you are absolutely correct to oppose what people who DO have familiarity with her work are saying of it?

Seriously, would you accept that line of reasoning from someone else if they knew nothing of a topic you were opining on, but insisted that you were wrong... because they say so?


Seriously, take half an hour and go check out her website. If you don't want to buy her book and read it, I seriously don't blame you. But at least do a little bit of investigation and familiarize yourself with her arguments, listen to her in interviews, and read what she herself says about her own philosophy as it applies to other white people. Then, if you still disagree with Met an my view that this disparity in pay, and lack of action on DiAngelo's part, is rank hypocrisy that should completely undermine her entire premise for any rational human, at least you'll have some support for your argument
https://www.robindiangelo.com/accountability-statement/

 

[Emily Lake]

On the other hand, some of her stuff is so incoherently bizarre that I end up giggling:

I make my living from my long term work in antiracist education. I would offer that those who do not make their living from antiracist work are financially benefitting from systemic racism.

This is her counterargument to the fact that she makes a LOT of money as a white person, lecturing about antiracism... and how racist white people are. It also seems to be her rationalization for why she doesn't donate her earnings until it "hurts", despite that being her explicit recommendation for something white people need to do in order to alleviate their white supremacist ways.

She actually said that?

It's written on her accountability page. Clear as day. It's her rebuttal to criticisms of how she makes her living, under the section titled "“You are monetizing the Black experience and profiting from Black pain”"

 

[ruby sparks]

As I said previously, John McWhorter's 'black victimology' thesis is arguably as bad, in terms of its crude over-simplifications, in the other direction

What are the oversimplifications in McWhorter's response that are arguably as bad?

Broadly speaking, as I understand it (from what I've read and heard by him) that the key explanation for (at least a good deal of) the extant racial inequalities we see, in somewhere like the USA, is.......blacks themselves (and in particular their sense of victimhood, which holds them back).

Which seems to be a counterpoint to DiAngelo's ideas, because she (it seems to me) overstates the extent to which it's white people's fault instead.

Whereas I would be very surprised if both things were not just two among a number of ingredients in a complex mix, and that both are generally true at the same time, but only up to a point.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.

I am confident in my opinion that it is possible that her negligence on the prevention of the gap is due to human fallibility not hypocrisy. Being intimate or ignorant of her views has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Frankly, anyone who seriously claims (as opposed to hyperbole) that all interactions are racist is too far gone to bother with. Anyone who seriously claims that blacks cannot afford to believe in meritocracy is too far gone to bother with - even within the black community, there is an observable meritocracy.

As an aside, I would not respond to a shitty right wing rag's request for anything. The Madison Free Beacon has an established history of printing false information about anyone left of the GOP. Perhaps Ms. DiAngelo subscribes to Thomas Jefferson's dictum of "Don't fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel" (though I doubt it).

 

[Emily Lake]

For funsies...

The following are the basics of how I seek to be accountable.
...
1. Donate a percentage of your income to racial justice organizations led by BIPOC people. If you earn more than enough to meet your basic economic needs, strive to give until you can “feel it”. Your checkbook is a reflection of your antiracist commitment made tangible through directly addressing the unjust distribution of economic resources based on race.

And...

“What do you do with your income?”
...
To this end, back to the beginning of 2020, I donate 15% of my income quarterly – in cash and in-kind donations – to racial justice organizations led by BIPOC people.

These are on the same page. The first is her outlining the very first item in a list of what white people can do to be anti-racist. We're supposed to give until we "feel it". The second is further down the page, where she's giving 15% of her enormous income in donations. I'm not convinced that she's "feeling it".

 

[Emily Lake]

This is a situation that I find rather confusing. I get that a whole lot of it is nothing more than knee-jerk opposition to whatever Met says. But step back for a moment and think about this: you, LD, Jarhyn, and several others in this thread have straight up said you don't know anything about DiAngelo or her work or her philosophy. You haven't gone and looked into it to form your own opinion, and seem to have no intention of doing so.

I am confident in my opinion that it is possible that her negligence on the prevention of the gap is due to human fallibility not hypocrisy. Being intimate or ignorant of her views has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Frankly, anyone who seriously claims (as opposed to hyperbole) that all interactions are racist is too far gone to bother with. Anyone who seriously claims that blacks cannot afford to believe in meritocracy is too far gone to bother with - even within the black community, there is an observable meritocracy.

Sure, it's possible that it's human fallibility. I'd give that a lot more credence and weight if she herself considered human fallibility an acceptable excuse in any situation... but she doesn't.

DiAngelo falls pretty firmly into your second paragraph. It's the combination of that outlook, paired with her lecturing that white people need to actively identify and call out and take direct action when there are inequities (because they're all caused by racism) that makes her lack of action in this case fall into the bucket of hypocrisy for me. It's that she makes a high-income living out of telling white people that they should be doing the thing that she herself did NOT do.