The White Guy Problem

[Bronzeage]

Which is not as good a thing as you are implying. Many gay kids who came out to their parents were disowned by their families, kicked out of their houses and generally lost their family support system.

Another factor to consider, very little anti-gay bias and homophobia was in statutes. It was an unwritten and cultural bias, but there were never "separate but equal" legal mandates for homosexuals. When homosexuals were considered by the legal system, they were considered degenerates, not second class citizens.

Actually until 2003 gay sex was a major felony in many states.

I did not imply it was a good thing, but you are free to infer anything you wish.

Gay sex was illegal, but there was never a law which denied homosexuals free use of public transportation. As I said, the law treated them as degenerates with a mental disease.

 

[Toni]

That is irrelevant to the privilege existing. Are you capable of admitting the privilege exists, or will you deny such a thing could be fathomable?

No, it isn't. Divorce law and custom, as written and practiced, is both classist and paternalistic. Not to mention, much like marriage itself, it is also antiquated.

Alimony is not an invention of women, but fathers not willing to take care of their daughters or lose the value of a dowry after a divorce, not to mention a discouragement to ending the marriage at all.

And in the modern day, with no-fault divorce, it is not the power play it used to be.

As for the privilege of divorce, I doubt if you will find many poor and working class women who will agree with you, and they make up the majority of the population.

Interesting privilege, divorce

You only get to use it if your marriage fails, your home is broken, and your children are split between households.

Now that is a privilege women must be standing in line to take advantage of.

Whoopee

Not to mention that alimony was awarded because women were significantly excluded and where included, usually marginalized in the workplace.

It is true that courts have traditionally favored awarding custody of minor children to the mother but that is less true today than previously. However, today, if a woman does not get custody of her children after a divorce, it is assumed to be because she is an unfit parent. Even when she decides to let the father have primary custody because he can better provide economically for the children or has a work schedule which is more conducive to raising children than hers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

aa

It's a lot easier to make it someone else's problem than to deal with it.

 

[bilby]

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

aa

It's a lot easier to make it someone else's problem than to deal with it.

And whose fault is that?

 

[Derec]

Not to mention that alimony was awarded because women were significantly excluded and where included, usually marginalized in the workplace.

But alimony is still awarded (and some states like California have life-long alimony) even though this isn't true and hasn't been true in a while. The lopsidedness of alimony is staggering - 96% of recipients are women, only 4% are men.

It is true that courts have traditionally favored awarding custody of minor children to the mother but that is less true today than previously. However, today, if a woman does not get custody of her children after a divorce, it is assumed to be because she is an unfit parent. Even when she decides to let the father have primary custody because he can better provide economically for the children or has a work schedule which is more conducive to raising children than hers.

It is still the case that if a woman wants custody she'll get it in vast majority of cases. And even if the child spends 50% of time with the dad he still has to pay the ex-wife child support. Physical custody should be subtracted from child support owed with 50-50 not resulting in any child support payments.

- - - Updated - - -

[
I did not imply it was a good thing, but you are free to infer anything you wish.

I did not infer that you thought it was a good thing but I did infer you thought it was not very significant.

Gay sex was illegal, but there was never a law which denied homosexuals free use of public transportation. As I said, the law treated them as degenerates with a mental disease.

I'd take sitting on the back of the bus over that.

 

[Derec]

I don't think anyone was implying that coming out to your parents, other family, friends and coworkers has ever been easy or without some really serious repercussions.

That's how I took Bronzeage's statement.

How often was anyone prosecuted for such a felony? When was the last felony conviction?

Well Lawrence (of Lawrence v. Texas) was prosecuted and convicted in 1998. That is far more recent than segregated buses.

 

[Derec]

No, it isn't. Divorce law and custom, as written and practiced, is both classist and paternalistic.

How is it classist? And it's biased against men, not women.

Not to mention, much like marriage itself, it is also antiquated.

Why then do feminists like Wendy Murphy defend lifelong alimony laws that make men into serfs of their ex-wives?

Alimony is not an invention of women, but fathers not willing to take care of their daughters or lose the value of a dowry after a divorce, not to mention a discouragement to ending the marriage at all.

Even if it were true, we no longer have dowries and the most ardent supporters of alimony today are feminists. \

And in the modern day, with no-fault divorce, it is not the power play it used to be.

There was a chance to make no-fault divorce into a truly gender-equal system. Unfortunately it has become a system where a woman can get her ex-husband's money even if she was cheating on him.

As for the privilege of divorce, I doubt if you will find many poor and working class women who will agree with you, and they make up the majority of the population.

2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women. Women can still get the house, at least half the assets (although I have read of cases where judges awarded the ex-wife 75% of assets) and in many cases alimony, in some states for life. Divorce laws basically give women the ability to say "I do not like the guy but I like his money, so I'll get rid of him and keep his money". And even if the man is smart enough to get a prenup a judge can capriciously set it aside.

Interesting privilege, divorce

Yes it is. It sure beats being a serf of your ex-wife, having to pay her tribute each month so she doesn't have to get a job, ever.

You only get to use it if your marriage fails, your home is broken, and your children are split between households.

In 2/3 of cases it is the woman who decides to break up the marriage and thus decides that a marriage has "failed". No wonder since they profit from divorce.

Now that is a privilege women must be standing in line to take advantage of.

You are speaking truth despite yourself. Divorce is very common and 2/3 are initiated by women.

 

[dystopian]

The fight for gay rights is taking place in a different era than when the Civil Rights movement began and is using different strategies for different times. The reason I believe that gay rights have been so successful in such a relatively short time is that the strategy is very much: hey, we're just like you. We're your sons/daughters/aunts/uncles/grandparents/parents/nice guy next door. Likely most people know people who are gay and like/accept them. Gay/straight is not immediately obvious but race almost always is. It is harder to identify a gay person as 'other' if you already know/like/work with/are related to that person. Bigotry is much harder to apply to individuals and much easier to throw at 'strangers.'

While that may be true to an extent, I don't quite buy that the same strategy wouldn't work just as well if it's given enough time to sink in. White kids who grow up playing with black kids don't identify them as 'other'; that attitude is later beat into them by the media and society at large. I don't think you undo that kind of cultural programming by telling people that *they* are the problem.

And it doesn't explain *why* the strategies used are different.

 

[Bronzeage]

[
I did not imply it was a good thing, but you are free to infer anything you wish.

I did not infer that you thought it was a good thing but I did infer you thought it was not very significant.

Gay sex was illegal, but there was never a law which denied homosexuals free use of public transportation. As I said, the law treated them as degenerates with a mental disease.

I'd take sitting on the back of the bus over that.

You missed the point.

Blacks and other minorities fought (and still fight) to gain equal legal status as all other citizens. Homosexuals fight to be recognized as "normal," not a malignancy which must be cured, quarantined , or amputated. While the goals of both are similar, the nature of the struggle is very different. If there is any political analogy, it might be in the resistance to the pseudoscience of eugenics, where certain classes of people were deemed a threat to the well being of the general population.

 

[Derec]

Blacks and other minorities fought (and still fight) to gain equal legal status as all other citizens.

Really? What part of "equal legal status" is still denied blacks and "other minorities"?

Homosexuals fight to be recognized as "normal," not a malignancy which must be cured, quarantined , or amputated.

But that included laws against them. As such, it is very similar.

- - - Updated - - -

While that may be true to an extent, I don't quite buy that the same strategy wouldn't work just as well if it's given enough time to sink in. White kids who grow up playing with black kids don't identify them as 'other'; that attitude is later beat into them by the media and society at large. I don't think you undo that kind of cultural programming by telling people that *they* are the problem.

Unfortunately, the prevailing ideology of SJWs and other progressives has the effect of identifying blacks as "other", whether that is their intention or not. Rejection of colorblind policies, insistence that "blacks can't be racist" etc. is all not very productive.

 

[Bronzeage]

Really? What part of "equal legal status" is still denied blacks and "other minorities"?

Homosexuals fight to be recognized as "normal," not a malignancy which must be cured, quarantined , or amputated.

But that included laws against them. As such, it is very similar.

- - - Updated - - -

While that may be true to an extent, I don't quite buy that the same strategy wouldn't work just as well if it's given enough time to sink in. White kids who grow up playing with black kids don't identify them as 'other'; that attitude is later beat into them by the media and society at large. I don't think you undo that kind of cultural programming by telling people that *they* are the problem.

Unfortunately, the prevailing ideology of SJWs and other progressives has the effect of identifying blacks as "other", whether that is their intention or not. Rejection of colorblind policies, insistence that "blacks can't be racist" etc. is all not very productive.

SJW make the perfect political opponent. Always whatever you need, when you need them.

 

[Derec]

SJW make the perfect political opponent. Always whatever you need, when you need them.

It's not my fault that they hold those positions.

 

[Bronzeage]

SJW make the perfect political opponent. Always whatever you need, when you need them.

It's not my fault that they hold those positions.

Maybe it is. What exactly are these warriors fighting against? You could be the cause of all of this.

 

[repoman]

As far as making your own opinions about policy making goes, it is best to not think about ideologues of any stripe. And real (not strawman) SJWs are definitely ideologues.

I do agree with Bronzeage that straw man SJWs may vastly outnumber real ones. But real, intense SJWs are as goddamn crazy as ideologues can get.

Damn, maybe the Real SJWs are a reaction to the Derecs of the world!

 

[One]

Really? What part of "equal legal status" is still denied blacks and "other minorities"?

The part where a white person is given the "benefit of the doubt" and considered the standard by which the rest of us are measured.
To function in America properly, one's racial and cultural heritage must be relegated to a state of "happen to be."
You just "happen to be" black/Hispanic/Creole/etc, but act in accordance to what white culture finds acceptable in attire, mannerism, speech and body language. For some of us, this requires wearing a mask during much of our lives.

Unfortunately, the prevailing ideology of SJWs and other progressives has the effect of identifying blacks as "other", whether that is their intention or not. Rejection of colorblind policies, insistence that "blacks can't be racist" etc. is all not very productive.

I do, however, agree with this sentiment. Minorities are quite capable of being racist, also. It goes both ways. I also feel that liberal categorization of black people as somehow terminally disadvantaged is dishonest as it denies the wealthy Black upperclass that has been established in this country since the Reconstruction period.

 

[bilby]

As far as making your own opinions about policy making goes, it is best to not think about ideologues of any stripe. And real (not strawman) SJWs are definitely ideologues.

I do agree with Bronzeage that straw man SJWs may vastly outnumber real ones. But real, intense SJWs are as goddamn crazy as ideologues can get.

Damn, maybe the Real SJWs are a reaction to the Derecs of the world!

If there are any real SJWs, then it is lazy and stupid to argue against 'SJWs' when you could instead specify exactly who the SJW in question is (if it is an individual's statement or argument that you oppose); or you could link to the source - perhaps the Society of SJWs Annual Newsletter - if it is a genuine organisation's statement or argument that you oppose.

The only reason to argue against an ill-defined grouping like 'SJWs', 'Feminists', 'Racists', etc. is to make it less obvious that you are attacking a man of straw.

Either you can provide evidence for a group with a policy - e.g. "The Democratic National Convention issued a policy document (link) arguing that..."; "At the Alabama Communist Party picnic, Mr Joe Bloggs said, to general applause, that..."; etc.,

Or you can provide evidence for an individual with a stated position - e.g. "John Smith said yesterday that..."; "Sam Spade's blog (link) claims that...".

If you can do either of those things, then why credit the nebulous 'SJWs' with the opinion you are attacking? If you can do neither of those things, then how are 'SJWs' distinguishable from strawmen?

 

[laughing dog]

I think the OP forgot an important angle on the "white guy" problem: the narrowed sense of hypersensitivity of social awareness we seem to have.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think the OP forgot an important angle on the "white guy" problem: the narrowed sense of hypersensitivity of social awareness we seem to have.

That was many pages back. Could we have a review of just what exactly the white guy problem is?

 

[repoman]

Basically, the Pat Buchanan and internet/4chan (now 8chan) theory of SJWs is that they are trained mostly in college and now high school by the line of cultural Marxism descending from the Frankfurt School.

8chan's /pol/ is a fascinating place that a short time there will explain this.

 

[Derec]

Basically, the Pat Buchanan and internet/4chan (now 8chan) theory of SJWs is that they are trained mostly in college and now high school by the line of cultural Marxism descending from the Frankfurt School.

They may be overcooking things a bit, but that doesn't mean the criticism is not valid. Your mentioning of high schools reminded me of this.
Teacher at ‘White Privilege Conference': Whites Are Never Cured of Racism