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

[ruby sparks]

Googling 'The Secret' it seems to be a book about the power of positive thinking.

If so, then I would say the same about it, that there is something in that idea.

 

[ruby sparks]

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.

Hm. As much as you might like to take DiAngelo off the hook completely, I personally think that if someone widely espouses certain ideas of the sort that as far as I can tell DiAngelo espouses, then I think it is not unreasonable for critics to see them as having been slightly hoist by their own petard when something like this happens.

 

[Arctish]

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.

Hm. As much as you might like to take DiAngelo off the hook completely, I personally think that if someone widely espouses certain ideas of the sort that as far as I can tell DiAngelo espouses, then I think it is not unreasonable for critics to see them as having been slightly hoist by their own petard when something like this happens.

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

 

[ruby sparks]

So I found a fairly short 2011 article by DiAngelo titled 'White Fragility'.

https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

I've skimmed it, and although I can see how it might be deemed, or be, contentious in places, it does not seem to go much overboard, in my opinion.

It's a bit broad-brushed. Several of the ideas can't readily be verified. But I think it's onto something nonetheless.

 

[ruby sparks]

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.

Hm. As much as you might like to take DiAngelo off the hook completely, I personally think that if someone widely espouses certain ideas of the sort that as far as I can tell DiAngelo espouses, then I think it is not unreasonable for critics to see them as having been slightly hoist by their own petard when something like this happens.

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether she received more than she should have, the other author received less than she should have, or their fees were in line with their book sales.

Point taken. But.....

There are wider points nonetheless. Are DiAngelo's books (and ideas) better, or does she benefit from the underlying privilege of having a much larger, more affluent, book-buying target audience?

In other words, and in a nutshell, and I think worth underlining, is what she had to say at the conference worth more than the other speaker? Surely this is something that she of all people might be expected to have weighed up.

At the very least, I think she might be a bit embarrassed about not having actively checked her privileges here, especially given that her specific ideas make her inactions ripe for some criticism.

And for all we know, she may be embarrassed. She may be the first to agree and admit that it was an omission, or at least regrettable and accidental. She may say that in future she will check, or that she will speak to her agents. She hasn't commented yet. She has certainly previously stated, I believe, that she herself is not immune to the problematical issues and assumptions she describes (and white people do tread a very thin line here) and fair play to her for that. And/or she may also defend it on the grounds you cite (larger book sales, or that she simply wasn't made aware). But I personally don't think that digs her out completely*.

As to how big the hole is, well, I don't think it's as big as is being suggested in the OP, even though the OP seems to air a valid criticism (specifically, that she let it happen) which I think needs to be taken on the chin and not dodged (by blaming agents alone).

And more importantly, imo, more important than just shooting the messenger in what may be her white-skinned achilles heel, I think the idea itself is worth exploring, and indeed taking on board, even if not DiAngelo's version wholesale.


* The flipside, of course, is that it could be said by some that it would be patronising to the other speaker for DiAngelo not to expect and take a higher fee. Such is the fine line that white people often tread.

 

[J842P]

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.

Hm. As much as you might like to take DiAngelo off the hook completely, I personally think that if someone widely espouses certain ideas of the sort that as far as I can tell DiAngelo espouses, then I think it is not unreasonable for critics to see them as having been slightly hoist by their own petard when something like this happens.

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

 

[laughing dog]

The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

That is literally non-responsive to the content of my observation.

It's a question that does not reach the threshold of consideration unless and until people can admit that DiAngelo has acted hypocritically in this situation.

Non-responsive to my question (since it granted the premise of Ms. DiAngelo's hypocrisy as a hypothetical) and wrong to boot. A mature adult realizes that any teacher of moral or philosophy of life is bound to be inconsistent in some aspect of their personal life. So why would it matter if Ms. DiAngelo is not the perfect paragon of her allegedly espoused ideals and teachings (a translation of "so what")? Another way to ask that is why bother pointing out an perceived hypocrisy on the part of Ms. DiAngelo other than to take advantage of taking a pointless potshot at a woman with whom you disagree?

 

[laughing dog]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

Not to people who think about it.

 

[J842P]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

Not to people who think about it.

I never made the claim that it is a thoughtful perspective. I am merely pointing out what the antiracist ideology states. And it states all of this quite plainly.

Indeed, you merely questioning this is an example of white fragility. You are centering your white need to deflect criticism over the very lives of BIPOC.

 

[laughing dog]

Not to people who think about it.

I never made the claim that it is a thoughtful perspective. I am merely pointing out what the antiracist ideology states. And it states all of this quite plainly.

Not the antiracist stuff I have read. To be fair, I don't read that much of it.

Indeed, you merely questioning this is an example of white fragility. You are centering your white need to deflect criticism over the very lives of BIPOC.

Yes, because accurately reflecting reality is a "white need".

 

[J842P]

Not the antiracist stuff I have read. To be fair, I don't read that much of it.

Indeed, you merely questioning this is an example of white fragility. You are centering your white need to deflect criticism over the very lives of BIPOC.

Yes, because accurately reflecting reality is a "white need".

I'm glad you understand why someone who isn't white might find this nonsense incredibly patronizing.

 

[Metaphor]

You are assuming she could have done that even though you admit she probably did not know what the other speakers were paid.

Of course she could have done it. She could have emailed the other keynote speaker, said "I am being paid $12k for this, if you are not being paid at least as much, we should demand equality from the organisers".

That's proactive. That's anti-racist. That's the kind of work that DiAngelo is demanding of others and the standard she claims to hold herself to.

You also assume she would take the word of a far-right publication at face value and immediately take action without doing any research or outreach or verification of her own. And you assume that she would agree with you on the correct course of action once she learned about it.

I assume there's no good reason to believe the article reporting it has the facts wrong. If they were, DiAngelo could easily have said "these facts are wrong".

DiAngelo doesn't have to agree with me about the correct course of action. The suggested proactive and reactive actions she could take are suggestions. But doing nothing isn't a course of action.

So this appears to be a matter for the authors to take up with their agents, no public rending of garments and gnashing of teeth required.

If she has instructed her agent: any fee you negotiate for me must not be higher than the fee you negotiate for any woman of colour in your roster who is attending the same event and doing the same work, then that would be a step DiAngelo can take and something she can update us on on her personal accountability page.

 

[Metaphor]

The question is not ”did racism take place”? but rather “how did racism manifest in that situation?

That is literally non-responsive to the content of my observation.

It's a question that does not reach the threshold of consideration unless and until people can admit that DiAngelo has acted hypocritically in this situation.

Non-responsive to my question (since it granted the premise of Ms. DiAngelo's hypocrisy as a hypothetical) and wrong to boot. A mature adult realizes that any teacher of moral or philosophy of life is bound to be inconsistent in some aspect of their personal life. So why would it matter if Ms. DiAngelo is not the perfect paragon of her allegedly espoused ideals and teachings (a translation of "so what")? Another way to ask that is why bother pointing out an perceived hypocrisy on the part of Ms. DiAngelo other than to take advantage of taking a pointless potshot at a woman with whom you disagree?

Since you appear unable to admit DiAngelo has in fact acted hypocritically, I'm not sure it's fair to demand I enact the labour of answering your question, but I'll do it anyway.

If DiAngelo does not herself carry out the work she demands of other white people, I think a couple of possibilities exist. It could indicate that what she is demanding is too hard. That the bar is so incredibly high nobody can clear it, including the person who set the height of the bar and is asking people to jump.

It may also indicate that perhaps DiAngelo doesn't really believe what she is espousing. That would be a much graver possibility.

 

[laughing dog]

Since you appear unable to admit DiAngelo has in fact acted hypocritically, I'm not sure it's fair to demand I enact the labour of answering your question, but I'll do it anyway.

All I know is that I asked you a question first which you dodged. I see no reason to reciprocate in answering a question from someone who refuses to answer my question.

I don't know whether Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite on this matter and neither do you because your argument is based on unsubstantiated premises. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. Nor do I think it makes one whit of difference if she is or is not.

If DiAngelo does not herself carry out the work she demands of other white people, I think a couple of possibilities exist. It could indicate that what she is demanding is too hard. That the bar is so incredibly high nobody can clear it, including the person who set the height of the bar and is asking people to jump.

Or that people are not perfect no matter how hard they try. I realize that may come to a shock to you, but everyone (including me and including you) are not perfect.

It may also indicate that perhaps DiAngelo doesn't really believe what she is espousing. That would be a much graver possibility.

Yes it would. But one would need more data to make a more accurate assessment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

So you're saying there can't be any other issue that influences what people are paid???

 

[Metaphor]

So......does that include patriarchy, or not? Because 'not existing' and 'existing, but not for claimed reasons' are obviously two different things.

No, they are not that obviously different.

Jesus didn't exist as Christians portray him. The son of god did not appear in Palestine and environs around 2,000 years ago nor were any miracles performed.

There is probably a historical person (or persons) who roughly correspond to 'Jesus', but that person was not the son of god (because there is no god). You might say 'Jesus did not exist as Christians portray him' or even 'Jesus did not exist', because the latter can be short hand for the former.

The patriarchy, when defined as an ongoing and historically omnipresent force of men running society to benefit from the subjugation of women, does not and never did exist. It's complete, shameless nonsense.

But does that not open the way to saying something like, 'patriarchy was, and still is to some degree depending on location, a social phenomenon/structure and an issue, but Feminism, by and large, and especially in modern, western contexts, overstates and oversimplifies it to the point that it skews the matter'?

In other words, can you concede to Feminism that they are addressing a real thing, but just doing it ...'badly'?

No. To concede something means you were skeptical or disagreed and now you've changed your mind.

I said the structures that some feminists claim existed, existed. There is no doubt, for example, that until the middle of the 19th century in England, any real property that married women inherited from their families automatically became the property of her husband. But this was not set up to benefit men over women, but in acknowledgment that a married man was responsible for the welfare (and debts) of his wife. Some feminists are so mindlessly deranged on this point they think women had the equivalent status of chattel slaves.

Feminists also think the patriarchy, as they conceive it, benefits men by subjugating women. This is absurd beyond comprehension. The idea that I benefit because some man somewhere harassed a woman is fucking sick. Yet feminists, and normies poisoned by feminist rhetoric, will mindlessly say I do in fact benefit, and that arguing I don't benefit is another sign of the patriarchy.

I would just add one thing. If (if) the difference in speaking fees here is normal, ie reflects a not unusual difference between two keynote speakers when one is simply more famous (and as often therefore more expensive) than the other, then it may not have anything to do with race at all.

No. You are thinking like a normal human being, not a critical race theorist. Any difference between fees paid to white speakers and black speakers is influenced by white privilege and racism. Racism is present all the time and everywhere, and white people benefit from it in every interaction. This is not a straw man of DiAngelo's position; it's the heart of it.

A normal human being sees DiAngelo's higher fee and thinks 'she has manufactured for herself a valuable brand, so she's getting the best fee she can get, no problem'. But a critical race theorist sees only the difference between black and white. Any policy or event that results in racial inequity (the reasons are literally irrelevant) is a racist policy. Not 'could have resulted from a racist policy'. Not 'unfortunately continues a pattern of racism that has already caused differences'. No. It is a racist policy.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death.

 

[Metaphor]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

So you're saying there can't be any other issue that influences what people are paid???

I hope you don't mind me speaking for you, but I'm certain J842P doesn't think that 'other issues' can't influence what people are paid.

Even critical race theorists don't think that 'other issues' can't influence pay. The other issues are simply irrelevant. Any difference, no matter how it has arisen, is the result of racism. The examination of causes does not need to be undertaken. Kendi has said explicitly any policy that results in inequitable outcomes is a racist policy.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know whether Ms. DiAngelo is a hypocrite on this matter and neither do you because your argument is based on unsubstantiated premises.

I laid out my premises in detail and lettered them. If you disagree with some of the premises, feel free to tell me which ones.

I admit that there could be a state of events that make her actions not hypocritical, but there's no evidence for them. For example, if DiAngelo had in fact received assurances from the organisers that there was no race gap in the pay of keynote speakers and relied on that information, then she hasn't been hypocritical.

 

[Arctish]

I get that. But you have to look at what the pay scale is and what it's based on before you can say whether DiAngelo received more than she should have or if Brown received less than she should have.

No, you don't. All you have to look at is that DiAngelo is white, and Brown is not. That is the only relevant detail.

Well, I suppose if you're an extremely shallow thinker you can think that. Or an extremely racist one.

Because this story is about two authors represented by the same agency (which of course is highly motivated to get the best deal for both of them) and the difference in fees can be explained by factors other than race. You'd have to be willing to actually think about the situation and maybe do a little research before jumping to conclusions about where and how much race influenced the outcome. For example, you'd have to consider whether DiAngelo being white is a factor in her books' popularity, or whether Brown's memoir being highly personal affected it's appeal to readers, or whether the Harry Walker Agency is showing favoritism toward the author most likely to bring the Agency the greater amount of money so she won't take her business elsewhere. That's not going to be easy.

 

[Trausti]

So you're saying there can't be any other issue that influences what people are paid???

I hope you don't mind me speaking for you, but I'm certain J842P doesn't think that 'other issues' can't influence what people are paid.

Even critical race theorists don't think that 'other issues' can't influence pay. The other issues are simply irrelevant. Any difference, no matter how it has arisen, is the result of racism. The examination of causes does not need to be undertaken. Kendi has said explicitly any policy that results in inequitable outcomes is a racist policy.

That is funny. To say there's a non-racial discrimination reason DiAngleo got paid more invalidates Critical Race Theory. So which is it?