7 ms·

Is this privilege story a U.S. thing? Where I live (in Europe), white men are frustrated, work hard and pay for the spouse after the divorce. It sounds like ev

Is this privilege story a U.S. thing? Where I live (in Europe), white men are frustrated, work hard and pay for the spouse after the divorce. It sounds like every white male in the U.S. lives like a Saudi prince.

douche 10y ago
There are people who are very invested in pushing that narrative, but it's a complete fiction for all but the richest 1% of US white men. The reality is no different than you describe.
- ams6110 10y ago
  And in those cases it's much more about the "richest 1%" than "white men"
varjag 10y ago
The undertone of this (hopefully unintended) is that non-whites don't have to work hard or pay alimony. Atop of being non-white with all inconvenience it involves, that is.
- G62hAanr_ 10y ago
  Against the rules I'm creating a second throwaway, but I felt the need to clarify that the undertone was not intended. Non-whites (mostly immigrants where I live) absolutely work hard and pay alimony, but getting into the social structures of their families (where male privileges do exist) would probably lead to a heated discussion.
  - varjag 10y ago
    Gender rights is a bit of a different topic, but I can point out that what you call "male privilege" is common still throughout most of (near exclusively white) Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. So let's not mix that with skin color: it is a cultural problem first and foremost, and yes, it's pandemic throughout the world. As to the white privilege in Europe, it definitely exists. People change their names to "native sounding" just to land the job interviews; you never hear a slur on the street for being white. At the same time, in the better part of Europe this issue is acknowledged and there's an effort to counter it, mainly throughout education. Expecting it to disappear completely is unrealistic, but I'd say Europe is doing an honest effort.
evgen 10y ago
Where you and I both live (Europe) white men may work hard but also have a much higher employment rate, so they actually have a greater chance of getting the job in the first place. The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege. Privilege is not a US thing, but pointing it out is much easier because the inequality is much greater and class distinctions are much clearer in the US when you take race and gender into account.
- FabHK 10y ago
  Not so: https://www.statista.com/statistics/280236/unemployment-rate-by-gender-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-year-on-year/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/280236/unemployment-rate... > This statistic shows the unemployment rate as a percentage of the total workforce, by gender, in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2000 to 2016. The rate for women was consistently lower than that of men during this time period. In Spain they're both around 50% (!) https://www.statista.com/statistics/488278/youth-unemployment-rate-20-24-years-old-in-spain-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/488278/youth-unemploymen...
  - evgen 10y ago
    And yet among minorities in the UK the unemployment rate is almost twice as high (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/08/rising-unemployment-for-uk-ethnic-minorities-race-whos-affected https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/08/rising...) and while your selected chart shows a slightly higher unemployment rate for men than women (by 0.2%) it neglects a much lower labor force participation rate for women than for men (~8% lower according to OECD stats).
- DaUR 10y ago
  > The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege That's very uncharitable and reductionist of you. Average people, no matter who they are, lead average, unfulfilled lives with unrealized dreams. Not only are your facts wrong, as pointed out below, but reality is always more complex than that, and it's incredibly manipulative to present it like you did. Women go to university more than men, for example. You're absolutely not entitled to determined whether which of their frustrations are "justified" or not, and everybody is frustrated for a whole range of reasons all the time, not just economic reasons, but psychological, emotional, relationships, hobbies, and more. Why are white men suiciding so much? Is that a privilege? You're not saying any of this out of empathy, as some in your cohort like to pretend. You're generalizing people by their race, essentializing them to their economic status, which dehumanizes both "privileged" and "unprivileged" completely. It's just a cheap ploy to frame yourself as righteous and "good" ("pointing it out"), and without question this fake social "science" is the biggest problem I have with the left.
DaUR 10y ago
"Privilege" is an original-sin like concept concocted entirely by sheltered sociologists who don't understand how to do science. It was predictable that they would come up with such a Puritanical and moralizing concept. On a larger note, the "privilege" concept appeals to people on the left with moralizer- and justice-oriented, self-righteous personalities, who are in other words the psychological equivalent to the zealous religious conservative right (who they would likely have belonged to, had they been born a few decades earlier, since personality traits always precede political ideology). It's not just rationally incorrect, but pretty cringeworthy.
- tptacek 10y ago
  No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white. Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable. The problem isn't people having privilege. Rather, the problems are: * Just-world-fallacy beliefs in nonexistent level playing fields, where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege. * Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite. The way I know this is noncontroversial and common sense is that nerds have no trouble recognizing the concept when discussions turn to venture capitalists, to hedge fund financiers and banksters, to congresspeople, to prosecutors, to jocks in high school, or to abusive monopolies.
  - DaUR 10y ago
    > No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white. You are making many assumptions on my beliefs, which are not true (Strawman!) > Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable. Yet it's never used in the context of being grateful for the things one has going for them, but always used to discuss what others have received. "Privilege" is always tinged with negative connotations. It's always something that requires you to give away something else (going at the back of the BLM demonstration, for example, or "shutting up" and letting "less privileged" people speak). It's used to shame or guilt people into things. You could probably show scientifically in a lab setting that reminding men of their "privilege" would quickly lower their testosterone levels, make them more passive and submissive, and more self-effacing. This is a case of "raising waves where there is no wind". You're pretending that you're just making people "more aware" of themselves and the world, when it goes much beyond that, psychologically. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the psychology behind "privilege", and just focus on the fact that "privilege" superficially sounds "rational". > where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege "Clear" is wrong. The world isn't black and white. > and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege. "Privilege" is the mirror narrative of the "you only have what you deserve" crowd. It's another side to the same coin. Empathic listening is the solution to both. To the latter, I say: "not everything went their way, they're doing their best, always be generous to those in need" and to the former, I say: "don't assume that someone who has more than you didn't work to deserve it". That would be a psychologically-correct position. > Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite You don't need this whole "privilege" narrative for that, only empathic listening to both sides (the one who feels wronged and the one who's accused) and reaching a conclusion yourself. Wanting to fit everything into a simpler ideology of "privilege" is dogmatic. It's really mind-boggling how deeply the "privilege" narrative has been anchored in the minds of people who see themselves as rational, which is very insidious. A proper understanding of psychology can simply neutralize this "privilege" narrative, which is not based in empathy, or in a correct understanding of people, but in browbeating.
frozenport 10y ago
Yes. It is a highly polticized term in American poltics.

douche 10y ago

There are people who are very invested in pushing that narrative, but it's a complete fiction for all but the richest 1% of US white men. The reality is no different than you describe.

ams6110 10y ago
And in those cases it's much more about the "richest 1%" than "white men"

varjag 10y ago

The undertone of this (hopefully unintended) is that non-whites don't have to work hard or pay alimony. Atop of being non-white with all inconvenience it involves, that is.

G62hAanr_ 10y ago
Against the rules I'm creating a second throwaway, but I felt the need to clarify that the undertone was not intended. Non-whites (mostly immigrants where I live) absolutely work hard and pay alimony, but getting into the social structures of their families (where male privileges do exist) would probably lead to a heated discussion.
- varjag 10y ago
  Gender rights is a bit of a different topic, but I can point out that what you call "male privilege" is common still throughout most of (near exclusively white) Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. So let's not mix that with skin color: it is a cultural problem first and foremost, and yes, it's pandemic throughout the world. As to the white privilege in Europe, it definitely exists. People change their names to "native sounding" just to land the job interviews; you never hear a slur on the street for being white. At the same time, in the better part of Europe this issue is acknowledged and there's an effort to counter it, mainly throughout education. Expecting it to disappear completely is unrealistic, but I'd say Europe is doing an honest effort.

evgen 10y ago

Where you and I both live (Europe) white men may work hard but also have a much higher employment rate, so they actually have a greater chance of getting the job in the first place. The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege. Privilege is not a US thing, but pointing it out is much easier because the inequality is much greater and class distinctions are much clearer in the US when you take race and gender into account.

FabHK 10y ago
Not so: https://www.statista.com/statistics/280236/unemployment-rate-by-gender-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-year-on-year/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/280236/unemployment-rate... > This statistic shows the unemployment rate as a percentage of the total workforce, by gender, in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2000 to 2016. The rate for women was consistently lower than that of men during this time period. In Spain they're both around 50% (!) https://www.statista.com/statistics/488278/youth-unemployment-rate-20-24-years-old-in-spain-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/488278/youth-unemploymen...
- evgen 10y ago
  And yet among minorities in the UK the unemployment rate is almost twice as high (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/08/rising-unemployment-for-uk-ethnic-minorities-race-whos-affected https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/08/rising...) and while your selected chart shows a slightly higher unemployment rate for men than women (by 0.2%) it neglects a much lower labor force participation rate for women than for men (~8% lower according to OECD stats).
DaUR 10y ago
> The only justification they have to be frustrated is if they expected 'enjoy middle class life' to be the normal outcome of having a job, which is the essence of privilege That's very uncharitable and reductionist of you. Average people, no matter who they are, lead average, unfulfilled lives with unrealized dreams. Not only are your facts wrong, as pointed out below, but reality is always more complex than that, and it's incredibly manipulative to present it like you did. Women go to university more than men, for example. You're absolutely not entitled to determined whether which of their frustrations are "justified" or not, and everybody is frustrated for a whole range of reasons all the time, not just economic reasons, but psychological, emotional, relationships, hobbies, and more. Why are white men suiciding so much? Is that a privilege? You're not saying any of this out of empathy, as some in your cohort like to pretend. You're generalizing people by their race, essentializing them to their economic status, which dehumanizes both "privileged" and "unprivileged" completely. It's just a cheap ploy to frame yourself as righteous and "good" ("pointing it out"), and without question this fake social "science" is the biggest problem I have with the left.

DaUR 10y ago

"Privilege" is an original-sin like concept concocted entirely by sheltered sociologists who don't understand how to do science. It was predictable that they would come up with such a Puritanical and moralizing concept. On a larger note, the "privilege" concept appeals to people on the left with moralizer- and justice-oriented, self-righteous personalities, who are in other words the psychological equivalent to the zealous religious conservative right (who they would likely have belonged to, had they been born a few decades earlier, since personality traits always precede political ideology). It's not just rationally incorrect, but pretty cringeworthy.

tptacek 10y ago
No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white. Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable. The problem isn't people having privilege. Rather, the problems are: * Just-world-fallacy beliefs in nonexistent level playing fields, where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege. * Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite. The way I know this is noncontroversial and common sense is that nerds have no trouble recognizing the concept when discussions turn to venture capitalists, to hedge fund financiers and banksters, to congresspeople, to prosecutors, to jocks in high school, or to abusive monopolies.
- DaUR 10y ago
  > No. That's a bizarre concept concocted by angry people on the Internet who have overdosed on Tumblr, attempted to derive a first-principles explanation for why people appear to believe strongly in the importance of otherkin rights, and arrived along the way at the notion that "privilege" means white people have done something intrinsically wrong just by being white. You are making many assumptions on my beliefs, which are not true (Strawman!) > Privilege as used in the real world (leaving out, perhaps, postmodern literature) is a simple, common-sense observation. Having privilege isn't wrong or evil; it's unavoidable. Yet it's never used in the context of being grateful for the things one has going for them, but always used to discuss what others have received. "Privilege" is always tinged with negative connotations. It's always something that requires you to give away something else (going at the back of the BLM demonstration, for example, or "shutting up" and letting "less privileged" people speak). It's used to shame or guilt people into things. You could probably show scientifically in a lab setting that reminding men of their "privilege" would quickly lower their testosterone levels, make them more passive and submissive, and more self-effacing. This is a case of "raising waves where there is no wind". You're pretending that you're just making people "more aware" of themselves and the world, when it goes much beyond that, psychologically. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the psychology behind "privilege", and just focus on the fact that "privilege" superficially sounds "rational". > where people experience benefits clearly attributable to some privilege "Clear" is wrong. The world isn't black and white. > and then claim that people who don't receive those benefits don't deserve them, when really they just lack the privilege. "Privilege" is the mirror narrative of the "you only have what you deserve" crowd. It's another side to the same coin. Empathic listening is the solution to both. To the latter, I say: "not everything went their way, they're doing their best, always be generous to those in need" and to the former, I say: "don't assume that someone who has more than you didn't work to deserve it". That would be a psychologically-correct position. > Knowingly and deliberately protecting some privilege, overtly denying benefits and recognition to those without it so that you can remain a member of an elite You don't need this whole "privilege" narrative for that, only empathic listening to both sides (the one who feels wronged and the one who's accused) and reaching a conclusion yourself. Wanting to fit everything into a simpler ideology of "privilege" is dogmatic. It's really mind-boggling how deeply the "privilege" narrative has been anchored in the minds of people who see themselves as rational, which is very insidious. A proper understanding of psychology can simply neutralize this "privilege" narrative, which is not based in empathy, or in a correct understanding of people, but in browbeating.

frozenport 10y ago

Yes. It is a highly polticized term in American poltics.