5 ms·

"I am so sick of women and people of color being openly hateful to people who were born the "wrong" gender and color to be part of the unfortunate many." Reall

by jolux 9y ago

"I am so sick of women and people of color being openly hateful to people who were born the "wrong" gender and color to be part of the unfortunate many." Really? So now being born white and male is the "wrong" color and gender? Those are identities that are near the apex of privilege in our society. As a white man, being afraid to ask questions for fear of being unintentionally racist or sexist is nowhere near comparable to the actual experience of racism and sexism. God forbid we hurt a white man's feelings while discussing social justice. That would be a true injustice.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dqv 9y ago
... I never thought I'd see the day that someone would argue that sensitivity to sexism and racism is white fragility and fragile masculinity.
stouset 9y ago
This is an infuriatingly unhelpful attitude. Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. Unnecessarily attacking, humiliating, or embarrassing a person who is willfully admitting their own ignorance and seeking a better understanding of the situation is so obviously counterproductive that I can't believe I'm having to write this comment. This is not the way to win people to your side — in fact, it's completely the opposite. Doing so only causes both sides to become more firmly entrenched in their beliefs and less likely to try and discuss the issue further. By giving them a positive experience, you not only increase the likelihood of them seriously considering your arguments, but you also open the door for them to come back to the table for discussion again, even if you didn't win them over the first time around.
- zepto 9y ago
  Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well. It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.
  - FT_intern 9y ago
    Attacking someone for ignorance is very unproductive
    - zepto 9y ago
      So why do white men do it to women and PoC, or is your claim that ignorance only exists on one side of this? You imply that while men can do nothing for themselves unless given positive experiences by women an PoC. This is obviously false, since there are plenty of white men who have a good understanding of these issues. Stop blaming women and PoC for your own ignorance and go and learn something from people who have figured this stuff out.
      - stouset 9y ago
        I can think of virtually no better example to prove my point than the contents of this exchange. So thank you for helping me to demonstrate to everyone else in this thread that speaking from anger, constructing and attacking the flimsiest of straw men, and repeatedly misconstruing a sympathetic counterparty's points only serves to push away the people you might hope to see your point of view. I genuinely hope it was satisfying for you, because that's about the only positive outcome that's likely to arise for you out of this.
        zepto 9y ago
        Try reading what I am saying without projecting anger into it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't mean it's angry. Also - there is nothing you have said that indicates you are a sympathetic counterparty. How do you expect us to know that? Therein lies the problem.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  > Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. For some, this is the goal. Unfortunately, they tend to be drowned out by those who find the experience of loudly attacking and embarrassing "privileged" folk to be cathartic and uplifting — a goal unto itself. Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein made a great point on a podcast earlier this week: "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."
  - Mz 9y ago
    "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction." I think the difference is pretty readily discernible. I don't think they point in the same direction at all. The difference is between "Can you help me up off the pavement and help me dust myself off, given that you are standing above me and have strength I lack?" and "Hey, lay down on the pavement so I can shit all over you because someone who looks kind of like you shit all over me and it's my turn. That's only fair."
- jolux 9y ago
  I'm not actually saying we should attack people for being ignorant, I'm saying that if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. Allyship is complex and defined finally by those you are allied with.
  - stouset 9y ago
    > ...if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Nobody is arguing this. Here's the thing though: it doesn't matter if one problem is worse than the other, at least as to the point people are trying to make in this thread. When activists are openly hostile or otherwise inflammatory to people who are sympathetic to but not yet behind the activists' cause, they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective. Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future. > Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. I'm sorry, but this is phenomenally short-sighted. This is how the human psyche works. Virtually any person who's been converted to your cause started from a position of disagreement, went through a transition period where they started to question longstanding beliefs and assumptions, learned to empathize with people who were harmed by the status quo, and eventually discarded or significantly amended those original beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.
    - gizmo 9y ago
      > they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it. Why do you think you're in a better position to judge what works and what doesn't than the activists who deal with this stuff every day? Being hostile towards people who are ignorant and react indignantly when their ignorance is pointed out is a strategy, and one that seems to work. Sure, some people don't take criticism well and you lose them. But some people _will_ listen, improve their behavior, and will eventually become worthwhile allies.
WalterSear 9y ago
If the outcome you want is empathy, you need to demonstrate it. If you don't demonstrate it, you are essentially dehumanizing yourself in the conversation, making it harder for others to empathize with you. Then again, >whatever< outcome you want, you will need more empathy: you are not demonstrating enough empathy here in order to outwit an adversary, let alone to foster productive egalitarian relationships.
- jolux 9y ago
  Yeah but empathy is not the outcome I want at least; the outcome I want is to reverse the material inequities that foster oppression. I don't care whether or not you have empathy for victims of racism and sexism, they don't just need empathy, they fucking need help.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy is the ability to model another individual's internal state. Sympathy is resonance with the emotional value of that state. The more empathy you have for someone, the better you are able to anticipate and meet (or thwart) their needs. I can hope you will win a game of chess (sympathy) whether or not I can guess the next move you will make (empathy). Empathy is the outcome you want. Racism, sexism - objectification is the inability to model another's internal state sufficiently. Material restitution would not change these underlying dynamics, and, moreover, is hinged on an implied subsequent social egalitarianism that it does little to bring about. Reverse those material inequities without denormalizing the attitudes that put them there, and it's only matter of time until the inequities will return: nothing has been actually been done about the root cause. For that, empathy for the outgroup in question has to occur, to the point where people do not make the misapprehensions that are dehumanization, and treat them with the respect they deserve in an egalitarian society. If you think this is impossible or unnecessary to achieve, then the reversal of material inequities you seek will only happen under the barrel of a gun - one pointed specifically at those groups who you consider responsible for the status quo. Moreover, in order to take that attitude, you implicitly judge them as incapable or undeserving of an egalitarian status in society. In other words, the specific discrimination of a group, based on their dehumanization. So, how is this not 'fostering oppression'? :) Society exists under the tacit assumption that all our needs are being met appropriately. This may not be accurate, but only through empathy can that assumption be challenged appropriately.

by jolux 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dqv 9y ago

... I never thought I'd see the day that someone would argue that sensitivity to sexism and racism is white fragility and fragile masculinity.

stouset 9y ago

This is an infuriatingly unhelpful attitude. Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. Unnecessarily attacking, humiliating, or embarrassing a person who is willfully admitting their own ignorance and seeking a better understanding of the situation is so obviously counterproductive that I can't believe I'm having to write this comment. This is not the way to win people to your side — in fact, it's completely the opposite. Doing so only causes both sides to become more firmly entrenched in their beliefs and less likely to try and discuss the issue further. By giving them a positive experience, you not only increase the likelihood of them seriously considering your arguments, but you also open the door for them to come back to the table for discussion again, even if you didn't win them over the first time around.

zepto 9y ago
Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well. It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.
- FT_intern 9y ago
  Attacking someone for ignorance is very unproductive
  - zepto 9y ago
    So why do white men do it to women and PoC, or is your claim that ignorance only exists on one side of this? You imply that while men can do nothing for themselves unless given positive experiences by women an PoC. This is obviously false, since there are plenty of white men who have a good understanding of these issues. Stop blaming women and PoC for your own ignorance and go and learn something from people who have figured this stuff out.
    - stouset 9y ago
      I can think of virtually no better example to prove my point than the contents of this exchange. So thank you for helping me to demonstrate to everyone else in this thread that speaking from anger, constructing and attacking the flimsiest of straw men, and repeatedly misconstruing a sympathetic counterparty's points only serves to push away the people you might hope to see your point of view. I genuinely hope it was satisfying for you, because that's about the only positive outcome that's likely to arise for you out of this.
      - zepto 9y ago
        Try reading what I am saying without projecting anger into it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't mean it's angry. Also - there is nothing you have said that indicates you are a sympathetic counterparty. How do you expect us to know that? Therein lies the problem.
didgeoridoo 9y ago
> Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should change. For some, this is the goal. Unfortunately, they tend to be drowned out by those who find the experience of loudly attacking and embarrassing "privileged" folk to be cathartic and uplifting — a goal unto itself. Evergreen College professor Bret Weinstein made a great point on a podcast earlier this week: "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction."
- Mz 9y ago
  "You have the real equity movement which are people who wish to end oppression, and then you have another movement that wishes to reverse oppression. And they don't know that they are different, because until you reach equity, they're pointing in the same direction." I think the difference is pretty readily discernible. I don't think they point in the same direction at all. The difference is between "Can you help me up off the pavement and help me dust myself off, given that you are standing above me and have strength I lack?" and "Hey, lay down on the pavement so I can shit all over you because someone who looks kind of like you shit all over me and it's my turn. That's only fair."
jolux 9y ago
I'm not actually saying we should attack people for being ignorant, I'm saying that if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. Allyship is complex and defined finally by those you are allied with.
- stouset 9y ago
  > ...if a white guy gets offended while trying to learn that it's less of a problem than the actual object of our activism. Nobody is arguing this. Here's the thing though: it doesn't matter if one problem is worse than the other, at least as to the point people are trying to make in this thread. When activists are openly hostile or otherwise inflammatory to people who are sympathetic to but not yet behind the activists' cause, they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective. Those people who held out an olive branch only to have it knocked aside are less likely to become allies in the future. > Frankly if I have to argue with this person and tiptoe around their fragile ego in discussing these things I'm not sure we want them in the first place. I'm sorry, but this is phenomenally short-sighted. This is how the human psyche works. Virtually any person who's been converted to your cause started from a position of disagreement, went through a transition period where they started to question longstanding beliefs and assumptions, learned to empathize with people who were harmed by the status quo, and eventually discarded or significantly amended those original beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a psychologist who will suggest that ridiculing or attacking a person in that transition period will do anything but turn them away and calcify their original position.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    > they undermine that cause by pushing away and alienating the very people who are signaling that they're on the cusp of changing their perspective You have repeatedly made this assertion, but you have made no effort to substantiate it. Why do you think you're in a better position to judge what works and what doesn't than the activists who deal with this stuff every day? Being hostile towards people who are ignorant and react indignantly when their ignorance is pointed out is a strategy, and one that seems to work. Sure, some people don't take criticism well and you lose them. But some people _will_ listen, improve their behavior, and will eventually become worthwhile allies.

WalterSear 9y ago

If the outcome you want is empathy, you need to demonstrate it. If you don't demonstrate it, you are essentially dehumanizing yourself in the conversation, making it harder for others to empathize with you. Then again, >whatever< outcome you want, you will need more empathy: you are not demonstrating enough empathy here in order to outwit an adversary, let alone to foster productive egalitarian relationships.

jolux 9y ago
Yeah but empathy is not the outcome I want at least; the outcome I want is to reverse the material inequities that foster oppression. I don't care whether or not you have empathy for victims of racism and sexism, they don't just need empathy, they fucking need help.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy is the ability to model another individual's internal state. Sympathy is resonance with the emotional value of that state. The more empathy you have for someone, the better you are able to anticipate and meet (or thwart) their needs. I can hope you will win a game of chess (sympathy) whether or not I can guess the next move you will make (empathy). Empathy is the outcome you want. Racism, sexism - objectification is the inability to model another's internal state sufficiently. Material restitution would not change these underlying dynamics, and, moreover, is hinged on an implied subsequent social egalitarianism that it does little to bring about. Reverse those material inequities without denormalizing the attitudes that put them there, and it's only matter of time until the inequities will return: nothing has been actually been done about the root cause. For that, empathy for the outgroup in question has to occur, to the point where people do not make the misapprehensions that are dehumanization, and treat them with the respect they deserve in an egalitarian society. If you think this is impossible or unnecessary to achieve, then the reversal of material inequities you seek will only happen under the barrel of a gun - one pointed specifically at those groups who you consider responsible for the status quo. Moreover, in order to take that attitude, you implicitly judge them as incapable or undeserving of an egalitarian status in society. In other words, the specific discrimination of a group, based on their dehumanization. So, how is this not 'fostering oppression'? :) Society exists under the tacit assumption that all our needs are being met appropriately. This may not be accurate, but only through empathy can that assumption be challenged appropriately.