3 ms·

> The diversity movement do not care about class. A poor white man is hated as much as a rich white man. I can only conclude that "personal experience" and "fea

> The diversity movement do not care about class. A poor white man is hated as much as a rich white man. I can only conclude that "personal experience" and "fears and the options presented" are not factors. That's absolutely not the case, it's just that classism is often used as a blind for other forms of discrimination. Classism, Racism and Sexism are all separate axis of potential discrimination. Many intersectional feminists talk regularly about class, but we ALSO make time to distinctly address other forms of systemic discrimination. I believe so firmly that classism is a major gate to our field that I reshaped my entire career around addressing these issues. So don't tell me I don't care about that or that I'm unfairly excluding that from my rhetoric.

belorn 9y ago
If you are trying to address classism for white men in the working class, then you are up to a uphill battle. Not only is perception that the diversity movement is not helping in their plight, but the current image is that they are being painted as the enemy by the movement. If we look back a few decades, white working class men was a core voter group in left politics in both the US and the EU. Where I live (Sweden), socialist values like equality and an end to classism where very popular in the young male demographic. The social party held a close 50% majority for almost 60 years, only to drop by almost 20% in the last two decades, and the biggest change in demographic is young working class white men that has left. Every data point regarding trust that I have seen is showing that they have lost faith that the socialist movement is advocating for them. Classism, Racism and Sexism might be all separate axis, but one can't be a advocate for a demographic and at the same time demonize them.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  This is, without a doubt, the most absurdly twisted post to come of this thread. It takes a simple idea that is true and then winds around it a fiction that younger white men deserve protected status because they weren't born rich, to the exclusion of everyone else. It holds hostage the notion of socialism in exchange for further protecting and excusing bad behavior by a privileged class. Plenty of white people are not demonized. There is essentially no consequence for bad behavior but dirty looks. And if white men want to punish the upper white class for neglecting them, maybe they should stop pushing rich non-working-class men forward as their proxies.
  - belorn 9y ago
    This is not a zero-sum game and you exemplify the very problem of demonizing people based on color. Young white men deserve protected status in the same way that young black men deserve protected status. The commonality here is the social economical status, the problem which you earlier claimed to care about and now clearly stating your intention: that a low social economical status do not mean that they deserve protection. > And if white men want to punish the upper white class for neglecting them, maybe they should stop pushing rich non-working-class men forward as their proxies. An eye for an eye only leads to a blind world. How common isn't it to hear that if immigrants want help, maybe they should stop committing crime? The answer by the state and by research is the same: that the negative behavior cause by low social economical group is caused by the low social economical status. The solution is not an eye for an eye (more prison, harsher punishment, deportation, blaming them for their own situation), but rather helping them out of the low social economical status they are in.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > This is not a zero-sum game and you exemplify the very problem of demonizing people based on color I'm pointing out that specific minorities are being unfairly treated and your response is to infer that, not being part of the minority, the folks inflicting this must be part of the majority and then say: "demonization!" I'm not using the word demon here. I'm saying what's obviously happening. What 20 people just got fired at Uber for doing, and more have been told they can take training or leave over. I'm not sure why recognizing there is a problem for certain people is "demonization" but it seems very fair we cannot call abusers abusers because it will hurt their feelings, but care not at all for the rights of the victims to seek redress. > Young white men deserve protected status in the same way that young black men deserve protected status. ... What? > The commonality here is the social economical status Then why are there more black men in jail then white men even normalizing for economic status and type of crime? You keep suggesting that if we just listened to the stats this would be clear, but observing the stats a picture totally discordant with your worldview emerges. > The solution is not an eye for an eye (more prison, harsher punishment, deportation, blaming them for their own situation), but rather helping them out of the low social economical status they are in. I'm happy to help, and I do. But also: folks need to admit they're part of a system perpetrating wrongdoing and work to end that wrongdoing. Everyone has a shared duty to do this as part of our society. I'm not sure how your response here addressed my criticism about electing super rich white men as proxies if the real problems are caused by the rich unfairly treating the poor, as you imply...

belorn 9y ago

If you are trying to address classism for white men in the working class, then you are up to a uphill battle. Not only is perception that the diversity movement is not helping in their plight, but the current image is that they are being painted as the enemy by the movement. If we look back a few decades, white working class men was a core voter group in left politics in both the US and the EU. Where I live (Sweden), socialist values like equality and an end to classism where very popular in the young male demographic. The social party held a close 50% majority for almost 60 years, only to drop by almost 20% in the last two decades, and the biggest change in demographic is young working class white men that has left. Every data point regarding trust that I have seen is showing that they have lost faith that the socialist movement is advocating for them. Classism, Racism and Sexism might be all separate axis, but one can't be a advocate for a demographic and at the same time demonize them.

KirinDave 9y ago
This is, without a doubt, the most absurdly twisted post to come of this thread. It takes a simple idea that is true and then winds around it a fiction that younger white men deserve protected status because they weren't born rich, to the exclusion of everyone else. It holds hostage the notion of socialism in exchange for further protecting and excusing bad behavior by a privileged class. Plenty of white people are not demonized. There is essentially no consequence for bad behavior but dirty looks. And if white men want to punish the upper white class for neglecting them, maybe they should stop pushing rich non-working-class men forward as their proxies.
- belorn 9y ago
  This is not a zero-sum game and you exemplify the very problem of demonizing people based on color. Young white men deserve protected status in the same way that young black men deserve protected status. The commonality here is the social economical status, the problem which you earlier claimed to care about and now clearly stating your intention: that a low social economical status do not mean that they deserve protection. > And if white men want to punish the upper white class for neglecting them, maybe they should stop pushing rich non-working-class men forward as their proxies. An eye for an eye only leads to a blind world. How common isn't it to hear that if immigrants want help, maybe they should stop committing crime? The answer by the state and by research is the same: that the negative behavior cause by low social economical group is caused by the low social economical status. The solution is not an eye for an eye (more prison, harsher punishment, deportation, blaming them for their own situation), but rather helping them out of the low social economical status they are in.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > This is not a zero-sum game and you exemplify the very problem of demonizing people based on color I'm pointing out that specific minorities are being unfairly treated and your response is to infer that, not being part of the minority, the folks inflicting this must be part of the majority and then say: "demonization!" I'm not using the word demon here. I'm saying what's obviously happening. What 20 people just got fired at Uber for doing, and more have been told they can take training or leave over. I'm not sure why recognizing there is a problem for certain people is "demonization" but it seems very fair we cannot call abusers abusers because it will hurt their feelings, but care not at all for the rights of the victims to seek redress. > Young white men deserve protected status in the same way that young black men deserve protected status. ... What? > The commonality here is the social economical status Then why are there more black men in jail then white men even normalizing for economic status and type of crime? You keep suggesting that if we just listened to the stats this would be clear, but observing the stats a picture totally discordant with your worldview emerges. > The solution is not an eye for an eye (more prison, harsher punishment, deportation, blaming them for their own situation), but rather helping them out of the low social economical status they are in. I'm happy to help, and I do. But also: folks need to admit they're part of a system perpetrating wrongdoing and work to end that wrongdoing. Everyone has a shared duty to do this as part of our society. I'm not sure how your response here addressed my criticism about electing super rich white men as proxies if the real problems are caused by the rich unfairly treating the poor, as you imply...