The White Guy Problem

[dystopian]

SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, a particular brand of social activism with a reputation for being overly zealous, self-righteous, and unreasonable. They unfortunately tend to give the rest a bad name.

Seriously? I can take on a dozen of those by myself and have plenty of white privilege to spare.

I think you might not have been exposed to them then. It's just about impossible to take them on because they're just so off the scale about their philosophy. For instance, the idea that gender is anything other than purely a social construct is anathema in the SJW community. As an example, I had a friend who got suckered into the SJW mindset, and somehow we'd gotten into a conversation about gender. At some turn in the conversation I said that there were in fact physical differences between the brains of males and females, but that *of course* people should be treated equally and as the gender they strive to be and identify as. He exploded in rage because I dared suggest that there were physical differences, called me sexist, the scum of the earth, and a host of other things, then refused to talk to me for a month and only started talking to me again after I practically begged him to and his neurologist had told them that I was actually right. I mean, how do you 'take' that on?

 

[bigfield]

Some SJWs think I'm a not a good guy? Oh how I wish I could win their approval.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The thing about white, male, or any similar kind of blanket privilege is that it's never universal; something that some SJW's seem to forget. As white people, we statistically speaking have a much higher chance of having an advantageous position in society; and white *men* even more so. But that doesn't mean that just *because* you're a white man, you're inevitably going to be in a better position (and thus be privileged) than others; or be treated better by them a priori (another form of privilege). There are always outliers. That isn't to say we shouldn't level the playing field for groups that are statistically speaking disadvantaged (although it would be preferable if we could find a way to both efficiently and fairly do so by looking at individual circumstances instead).

So it's really not true that the only reason to be upset about checking your privilege is because you 'can't'. That's *a* reason, but hardly the only one. Arguably a much more important reason is the fact that the statement can only be made by making some rather far-reaching assumptions about you based on nothing more than shallow external facts about you. Obviously "you're black therefore you must be a thug" is a much more problematic and offensive assumption to make about someone, but that doesn't mean that "you're white, therefore you're more privileged than me/them" isn't also offensive in its ignorance.

Well said. The confusion of group reputations or norms or stereotypes for universal truths about any individual in the group is a real problem here.

I also agree with the person above who said that racism against black people does not create "white privilege". That is a hostile way of approaching it and it is sure to backfire if your goal is to bring white people on board with fixing things. Focus on the wrong done to the disadvantaged, and if race is a factor in that disadvantage, then it is fine to target that. But race is not always a factor and should not be assumed to be in every case, as so many seem to want to do here. It is almost as ass backwards and sure to backfire as claiming that other groups can't be privileged, because of their membership in those groups (blacks, women, etc). Of course they can. Such privilege may not offset what they face against them, but the one doesn't magically negate the other.

I also agree with the person above who said that racism against black people does not create "white privilege". That is a hostile way of approaching it and it is sure to backfire if your goal is to bring white people on board with fixing things.

Couple of things here

• Putting the words white privilege in scare quotes is hostile. Leads to inferences that people discussing white privilege are either idiots or liars.
• Assuming the goal of social change is to get everybody on board is a wrong assumption.
  • That is an impossible goal
  • Social change is not about making the opposition feel confortable, but it is about the exact opposite.

 

[dystopian]

Couple of things here

• Putting the words white privilege in scare quotes is hostile. Leads to inferences that people discussing white privilege are either idiots or liars.

Calling that hostile is a bit of a reach, don't you think? Especially when it's not clear that anyone's using scare quotes. Wrapping "'s around terms can be interpreted in many different ways. I would interpret it more as a statement of disagreement with the term itself, without necessarily indicating the people who use the term are idiots or liars.

• Assuming the goal of social change is to get everybody on board is a wrong assumption.
  • That is an impossible goal
  • Social change is not about making the opposition feel confortable, but it is about the exact opposite.

Actually, in order to affect social change you really *must* get everybody; or enough people so that they might as well be called everybody; on board. That's the only way meaningful social change can be enacted. Anything else is nothing more than an attempt to force change on a majority that doesn't want it; and changes like that never last.

And while it's true that social change is not about making people feel comfortable, it is a mistake to extrapolate from that and assume that one can afford to *alienate* people; which is exactly what some of the current generation of activists are doing. Yes, social change requires you to make people feel uncomfortable; but how you go about that very much determines the outcome. The point is not to convince the opposition, it's to convince the silent majority who doesn't otherwise care enough to pick a side; and it's that majority that's being alienated with the way the debate is framed by certain parties. Why? Because the most vocal and visible activists simply don't sound reasonable; they sound petty and vindictive; and openly hostile towards those who disagree with them. That's a huge turnoff for people. In a public debate, the undecided will rally behind the voice that sounds most reasonable; and a voice laying blame at other people's feet rarely sounds reasonable.

We didn't get things like gay rights and gay marriage over here because of gay people and their supports telling the rest of society that everything's their fault and they need to change things so that the gay people can have rights too. We got those things because gay activists sounded eminently reasonable when they pointed out that they should be allowed to have the same rights as everyone else. They didn't tell straight people to change; just to not get in the way. That was reasonable, and thus they got sympathy and change was ultimately enacted. It's a tactic that worked, and which is being rejected by many SJW's.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I've never understood people who thought the best way to solve a problem was to assign blame.

aa

 

[Toni]

I've never understood people who thought the best way to solve a problem was to assign blame.

aa

I agree completely.

But recognizing that skin color and gender play enormous roles in status and privileges awarded by society is not the same thing as blame.

I grew up with not a lot (not always indoor plumbing, for example) but with considerably more than my parents had when they were kids (definitely no indoor plumbing unless you count a pump at the kitchen sink as indoor plumbing). Because my parents worked hard and made certain that the assumption that all of their children would go on to college permeated our childhoods, we all did earn university degrees. All of us are much better off economically than my parents ever dreamed of being.

Wherever I go, no matter what situation or setting, including events where some pretty wealthy, high status and important people make up a large portion of attendees, I am always assumed to 'belong.' I've never been mistaken for the maid or help.

No one suggested I got my job, my admission to university or my (merit based) scholarships because of affirmative action.

No one looks at me and thinks I grew up poor, that I am uneducated, dangerous, out of place, or that I am on any kind of assistance, although for much of my growing up and very young adulthood, I would have qualified for assistance.

When I go shopping, I am not followed around by store clerks nor am I steered to the less expensive merchandise, even when I am dressed in jeans and sneakers (and not the fancy high priced ones). I see this happen to women of color who are dressed much nicer than I am. It's worse for men of color.

My kids were furious when they realized their non-white friends were being followed in stores while they were left alone to browse. Note: my son's black friends attended the same university, dressed better and had a higher GPA (high school and university) than my son, but his friend was followed every single time he went into a store in that college town.

I am not worried that if my son is pulled over for a broken tail light, the patrol officer will think he sees a weapon or weed or worse. I do not worry that my son will be killed for a minor traffic offense. Or a major one, for that matter.

The only difference between me and women who from similar backgrounds but who have black skin is the color of our skin.

Because I am female, I grew up hearing that girls were not good at math or science, although my sisters and I all excelled at both and went into STEM fields. It was assumed that I had no mechanical ability and didn't understand sports. When I was a young adult, I was told to my face that I didn't need as much money as a man did although I was single and self supporting. That attitude: the woman doesn't need to earn as much money, regardless of her marital status, still exists, although it is not stated so baldly. Also the assumption that after a woman has children, she is less 'dedicated' to her job while men are still seen as being more responsible and more dedicated if they marry and have children.

Now, I agree that the treatment that I get because I am white should not be viewed as 'privilege' but as the norm and should be afforded to all, not just those that unconsciously our society views as having higher status. I think that the benefits my husband gets for being male (as well as white) should be extended to all, as well.

Privilege is a relative. If persons of color, regardless of gender, were all treated as 'belonging' and as being accepted as intelligent, hard working, responsible members of society and that perceptions of laziness and violent tendencies, etc. were only meted out when actual behavior merited, then we would not be talking about white or white male privilege.

We're not there yet.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've never understood people who thought the best way to solve a problem was to assign blame.

aa

People who say things like this are the real problem.

 

[Bronzeage]

Seriously? I can take on a dozen of those by myself and have plenty of white privilege to spare.

I think you might not have been exposed to them then. It's just about impossible to take them on because they're just so off the scale about their philosophy. For instance, the idea that gender is anything other than purely a social construct is anathema in the SJW community. As an example, I had a friend who got suckered into the SJW mindset, and somehow we'd gotten into a conversation about gender. At some turn in the conversation I said that there were in fact physical differences between the brains of males and females, but that *of course* people should be treated equally and as the gender they strive to be and identify as. He exploded in rage because I dared suggest that there were physical differences, called me sexist, the scum of the earth, and a host of other things, then refused to talk to me for a month and only started talking to me again after I practically begged him to and his neurologist had told them that I was actually right. I mean, how do you 'take' that on?

You greatly underestimate the power of my white privilege. Because of my white privilege I was raised in an enlightened environment where all ideas were carefully examined. Nothing was considered to be truth, based solely on authority. This allows me to see weakness and fallacies on both sides of any argument. One of these weaknesses is the idea we should should create definitions of our opponents which pit the weakest of their arguments against the strongest of ours.

 

[dystopian]

You greatly underestimate the power of my white privilege. Because of my white privilege I was raised in an enlightened environment where all ideas were carefully examined. Nothing was considered to be truth, based solely on authority. This allows me to see weakness and fallacies on both sides of any argument. One of these weaknesses is the idea we should should create definitions of our opponents which pit the weakest of their arguments against the strongest of ours.

Okay, but nobody here was doing that.

That having been said, since the subject of explaining privilege being akin to explaining to a goldfish that he's wet has been raised in this thread; one might surely see parallels between that and the claim that one's upbringing enables them to see weakness and fallacies on both sides of *any* argument, hmm? So close, and yet so far. I too like to think I have the ability to see such things on both sides of a given argument. But maintaining that ability also requires a good deal of skepticism about your own mastery of it.

In any case, all that aside; I consider SJW's to be a quite separate phenomenon for social activism; to me, the weakness of their arguments doesn't reflect on others with similar goals; though I concede that there are many people for whom the opposite is true. That of course just gets back to larger problem of framing the debate. It's hard to keep the upper hand when you have a minority of people running off 'supporting' your position in ways that turn the majority against you. Some people might be able to look past that, but I think everyone here knows that one can't expect the majority to do so.

 

[Bronzeage]

You greatly underestimate the power of my white privilege. Because of my white privilege I was raised in an enlightened environment where all ideas were carefully examined. Nothing was considered to be truth, based solely on authority. This allows me to see weakness and fallacies on both sides of any argument. One of these weaknesses is the idea we should should create definitions of our opponents which pit the weakest of their arguments against the strongest of ours.

Okay, but nobody here was doing that.

That having been said, since the subject of explaining privilege being akin to explaining to a goldfish that he's wet has been raised in this thread; one might surely see parallels between that and the claim that one's upbringing enables them to see weakness and fallacies on both sides of *any* argument, hmm? So close, and yet so far. I too like to think I have the ability to see such things on both sides of a given argument. But maintaining that ability also requires a good deal of skepticism about your own mastery of it.

In any case, all that aside; I consider SJW's to be a quite separate phenomenon for social activism; to me, the weakness of their arguments doesn't reflect on others with similar goals; though I concede that there are many people for whom the opposite is true. That of course just gets back to larger problem of framing the debate. It's hard to keep the upper hand when you have a minority of people running off 'supporting' your position in ways that turn the majority against you. Some people might be able to look past that, but I think everyone here knows that one can't expect the majority to do so.

Nobody was doing that? Of course not. Men who claim gender difference is strictly social, in spite of medical advice are all over the place. We might need to spray for them.

SJW's are a strawman construction. They are what we need them to be, for the sake of our argument.

 

[dystopian]

Nobody was doing that? Of course not. Men who claim gender difference is strictly social, in spite of medical advice are all over the place. We might need to spray for them.

SJW's are a strawman construction. They are what we need them to be, for the sake of our argument.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble accepting the idea that the people I've personally encountered; and whose positions one can easily find tainting the overall societal debate with a little bit of googling; are a mere strawman construction; especially when the discussion we're having here isn't centered on how them existing somehow invalidates anyone else's position or arguments but rather that they unnecessarily complicate and frustrate matters. Or, I suppose we could just pretend extremists don't exist and that anyone pointing out that their existence gives the non-extremists a bad name is part of the problem/opposition instead of trying to help, that works too I guess.

 

[Underseer]

Nobody was doing that? Of course not. Men who claim gender difference is strictly social, in spite of medical advice are all over the place. We might need to spray for them.

SJW's are a strawman construction. They are what we need them to be, for the sake of our argument.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble accepting the idea that the people I've personally encountered; and whose positions one can easily find tainting the overall societal debate with a little bit of googling; are a mere strawman construction; especially when the discussion we're having here isn't centered on how them existing somehow invalidates anyone else's position or arguments but rather that they unnecessarily complicate and frustrate matters. Or, I suppose we could just pretend extremists don't exist and that anyone pointing out that their existence gives the non-extremists a bad name is part of the problem/opposition instead of trying to help, that works too I guess.

So complaining about injustice is "extremist" while preserving injustice is more rational/reasonable/moderate?

At least you rightists are consistent.

 

[dystopian]

So complaining about injustice is "extremist" while preserving injustice is more rational/reasonable/moderate?

At least you rightists are consistent.

What.

Did you not read my posts in this thread?

I was specifically referring to a very narrow subset of activists who'se views are extreme. As in the example of people responding with open hostility to the factual statement that gender is not a purely social construct. That is the position of an extremist. On the other hand, someone calling for women to have the same opportunities and rights as men, is *not* an extremist. The extremists I'm talking about are real people, not strawman constructions; and they can (and often do) inadvertently poison the efforts of others.

At absolutely no point in this thread have I ever suggested that complaining about social injustices itself is an extremist position, nor have I suggested that preserving injustice is rational. Drawing that conclusion from anything I've said requires quite some selective blindness since I've explicitly and repeatedly stated that privilege is real and a problem and that we should take steps to increase equality. I've just taken issue with the counterproductive manner in which some people are doing it.

And calling me a rightist requires a selective blindness to my entire post history. Although I suppose there's a few rightwingers on the forum who might get a kick and/or sudden upwelling of irrational rage at me being lumped in with them.

 

[Bronzeage]

Nobody was doing that? Of course not. Men who claim gender difference is strictly social, in spite of medical advice are all over the place. We might need to spray for them.

SJW's are a strawman construction. They are what we need them to be, for the sake of our argument.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble accepting the idea that the people I've personally encountered; and whose positions one can easily find tainting the overall societal debate with a little bit of googling; are a mere strawman construction; especially when the discussion we're having here isn't centered on how them existing somehow invalidates anyone else's position or arguments but rather that they unnecessarily complicate and frustrate matters. Or, I suppose we could just pretend extremists don't exist and that anyone pointing out that their existence gives the non-extremists a bad name is part of the problem/opposition instead of trying to help, that works too I guess.

It's a spectrum and all positions are defined relative to another. You call those near you reasonable and those far way, extreme. I don't see much hope of convincing someone to moderate their position, just because you think it will increase your argument's appeal.

 

[dystopian]

It's a spectrum and all positions are defined relative to another. You call those near you reasonable and those far way, extreme.

I beg to differ; that is not how I define extreme and reasonable. For one, a position can be both extreme and reasonable. It's certainly true that I, like everyone else on the planet, tend to define reasonable positions as those close to my own. But I define an extreme position as a position that deviates to a significant enough degree from the positions and attitudes of society at large. In that sense, quite a few of my own positions are ones that I would consider extreme; as such I do not consider an extreme position as an inherently negative thing; and do not define the term by how close or far away from my own position it is.

An extremist position is a slightly different beast. Extremism I would define as the active attempt to force the position on others, and/or to shut down opposition to the contrary. Extremism too, is something that I do not consider to be an automatically bad thing; but it's not going to win its proponents any favors and isn't going to accomplish goals along the lines of creating a positive and equal society. Extremism is something we've seen from both sides on the issue these past few years, but the nay-camp has an automatic advantage there since they're not actively trying to enact change but rather to keep things the same: it's much harder to convince people that they need to change for the sake of others than it is to convince them nothing needs to change, and consequently much harder to fuck the latter up by being a dick in front of others.

That's why it's so important for those wanting positive social change to recognize the most productive route to getting it.

I don't see much hope of convincing someone to moderate their position, just because you think it will increase your argument's appeal.

Nonetheless, that's what's required for social change to meet with widespread approval. If your goal is to enact change in society, then you must play to the crowd. That's not a statement of opposition to social-justice activists (as I've stated, I generally agree with them); just an attempt to point them back in the right direction. I'd much rather live in an equal society than an unequal one, after all.

 

[Rhea]

But the use of the term 'privilege' in any case is problematic. Let's say I have an advantage, compared to nonWhite people, in interacting with police. If the advantage is to be treated without prejudice, that does not mean that advantage came at the expense of nonWhite people. Prejudice against Black males doesn't help out White males. It makes everyone worse off. To start treating Black males without prejudice doesn't mean White males have to be treated with prejudice.

On the one hand, this points out the odd reluctance of some people to admit to privilege. When fighting it doesn't even dilute it for them, it only allows others to join the club along with them.

Given that, why would ANYONE decline to fight for social justice at the hands of police? All gain, no pain.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree completely that white people gain no benefit from the oppression of black people in America. When cops are overly aggressive to black communities, they are able to display their power and control white communities without ever having to police white communities. What I mean is, they get to display power to whites by proxy. Moreover, when people who are black and frequently jailed have trouble getting jobs, is there a benefit to white people who have done equal mischief but have no criminal record? I would submit, yes. So thinking that through, I can't agree that it is always "no benefit to whites" to be not-hassled.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, men certainly take the brunt of the blame for women not being on equal foot. And white people certainly take the brunt of the blame for the position of black people. But focus your talk on the ways in which women and black people are disadvantaged; show how people can help change things. But whatever you do, keep sounding positive. Don't lay blame, because that's going to backfire.

And if that isn't enough to convince one to reframe the debate, then consider that it really *isn't* up to, say, white men to make things better for black people. It's up to us to not be dicks and to get out of the way of black people lifting themselves up to an equal level. The last thing they need is white people coming in to be their 'saviors' and solve their problem for them. So then why frame the debate to be about what *white* people are doing wrong? Just politely tell them to step aside and then focus on what black people are doing *right* and how they can get better at it.

Sometimes I think it helps a cause mightily for the dominant group members to be part of the discussion. For, in this case, white people to talk to other white people about privilege. Sometimes I think that is the only group that can make an understandable description to the fish in the water. The only group that has respect enough to be listened to. I think some people who deny racism will never be able to learn about it from people who are oppressed by racism.

 

[repoman]

For the term SJW not to be used as a straw man it has to correctly describe a certain well defined group of people. If it is misapplied to people who are not SJWs that doesn't mean SJWs don't exist. On the other hand, when it is misapplied the meaning of it drifts.

It is a new term and it is catching on now.

If someone says they are a subscriber to the Socialist Workers of the World newspaper, you could call them a committed Socialist in a more strict sense than the word would mean to others. You can predict what their opinions on many topics and issues are since there is a clear orthodoxy to that branch of socialism. Same for someone who is a member of Focus on the Family.

So, there is not a precise SJW organization like in the previous two examples, but is there an emerging SJW orthodoxy? What is it aligned with, where does it come from?

ETA, because it is not codified like Focus on the Family it can o be both unfairly tarred by its detractors and praised by its admirers with no real fact checking. I can say why I think FOTF is a shit organization by giving exact examples previous actions and of stated positions on political issues.

 

[dismal]

It seems like one of the real challenges a white make leftist has to deal with is convincing himself he is a douchebag when he doesn't necessarily feel like one.

The less ideologically committed tend to bail out. See: elections.

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree completely that white people gain no benefit from the oppression of black people in America.

America is impoverished morally and economically when people are oppressed. This can hardly be a surprise.

Once upon a time, women were only a tiny part of the paid work force. They are now a much larger part. This did not come at the expense of men. More people in the labour force benefits all of society, and the arbitrary exclusion of people from it harms everyone.

When cops are overly aggressive to black communities, they are able to display their power and control white communities without ever having to police white communities. What I mean is, they get to display power to whites by proxy.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

Moreover, when people who are black and frequently jailed have trouble getting jobs, is there a benefit to white people who have done equal mischief but have no criminal record? I would submit, yes. So thinking that through, I can't agree that it is always "no benefit to whites" to be not-hassled.

There can always be individual beneficiaries when there is arbitrary discrimination, but society as a whole loses, including the group that contains the individual beneficiaries. For example, affirmative action arbitrarily discriminates against Asians and Whites, and so the individual Blacks and Latinos who got a slot when they wouldn't have without affirmative action benefit, but even that benefit is dubious. Society as a whole loses because the best people were not selected. The best people are never selected if arbitrary characteristics like race are used as a substitute for merit.

If White people do not go to jail for things they should have gone to jail for, it's obvious that the individual Whites gained but society as a whole has lost, since we think they ought to have been in jail and they were not in fact in jail.

Also, businesses lose out when those without jail terms but should have had them are hired over those with jail terms, because they're using not having been in jail as a proxy for being respectable, and clearly that proxy is faulty if a large number of Whites aren't going to jail for things they should have gone to jail for.