4 ms·

Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against

Modern men are not "privileged". This is corruption-of-blood level stuff. Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women and have no reason to accept being discriminated against as a result. Trying to blame bad things done by historical figures for bad actions taken today is the result of much wrongness in the world. Please don't try to justify it. Oh, and your analogy to the rich dude is deeply flawed. Rich people can become poor and poor can become rich; it happens all the time. Putting gender re-assignment surgery to one side, gender is generally fixed. If you get discriminated against because you're a man, you aren't going to be mollified by an argument of the form "one day you might be a woman and it may work in your favour". Whereas "one day you may be rich" or "one day you may be poor" is used as a reasonable justification for all sorts of things, like progressive taxation and a social safety net.

wpietri 9y ago
I am a man. I am definitely privileged because of it. Many men make similar observations: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-t...
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  That article doesn't list one concrete example of how being a straight white male actually made life easier for him. I can and have listed several major, specific ways in which it's the opposite. I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a variety of specific grievances, as would every feminist article in every newspaper (of which there are huge quantity every single day). You know what the last specific complaint in a feminist opinion piece I read was? An article a few days ago that was upset because the only female shoes in emoji are high heels. Don't tell people white male privilege exists when you can't back it up.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > [something] is exactly why Trump won No. Trump won through the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, rampant GOP gerrymandering, a terrifyingly complicit and supine media, an institutionally racist and sexist country backlashing to Obama, and an electoral system that vastly overpowers the majority white (and racist) Southern states.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary, perhaps due to her massive campaign spending. Regardless, I think when your explanation is "the entire USA is racist and sexist" you are - again - making my point for me. I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. But if you constantly tell ordinary, hard working and honest people that their whole life is a fraud, that their success isn't really success, it's just "white male privilege", and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? They're going to get mad and start quietly voting for someone who fights back against that culture. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know it.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        > The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary Yes, that explains the overwhelming concentration on the email "scandal" whilst ignoring literally everything that Trump said. > I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. That's ... not how it works. > and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? But the reasons are pointed out. They just get ignored because the kind of people who refuse to believe that "white male privilege" exists aren't the kind of people who listen to rational arguments.
        fareesh 9y ago
        > Yes, that explains the overwhelming concentration on the email "scandal" whilst ignoring literally everything that Trump said. It was not entirely undeserved though - the scandal was certainly newsworthy and had many unprecedented events. The Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting was highly inappropriate, leading to the eventual decision falling to James Comey. James Comey had earlier, much to the dismay of Republicans, chosen not to pursue Bill Clinton's incredibly dubious pardon of Marc Rich. When he announced that they would not seek prosecution, his reasoning was that there was plenty of negligence but no intent - an interpretation of the statute that had not been used in previous cases for which many have been convicted. To make matters worse, Secretary Clinton fainted on September 11 at a memorial service for 9/11 and the press was nowhere to be found when it happened. A random bystander managed to get footage of her security detail awkwardly putting her into a van. This is less than 2 months before the election. The campaign response started with "overheating" and then went to pneumonia. Over the weeks prior to this, there was an all-out media blitzkrieg dismissing rumors of her ill health as a conspiracy theory. She herself lied straight into the camera about her health, to the extent that she went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and opened a pickle jar as a gag. This was a mere 2 weeks before she passed out. Around the same time, John Podesta's leaked emails had revealed the tremendous influence the campaign seemed to have with the press, and the media in general. One could argue that this is simply "how the sausage is made" when it comes to political campaigns, but to much of the general public, this sort of insight was unprecedented. This kind of story is severely damaging to any candidate. When the footage of her collapsing came out, it served to validate what the right leaning media had been saying all along, plus reinforced fears of mainstream media collusion revealed in the emails were not unfounded, since the left leaning media had gone to bat for her when the health stories came out, and had no cameras present during a major development in the campaign which would have hurt her perception with the voting public. This significantly undermined the perception of integrity in the media. As damage control, the media did more negative stories in the months leading up to the election. > They just get ignored because the kind of people who refuse to believe that "white male privilege" exists aren't the kind of people who listen to rational arguments. There is no evidence to suggest that they are being willfully ignored, nor that people are being irrational in their refusal to believe, nor does it flow logically. This privilege certainly exists in several contexts, but to generalize across an entire demographic of people is easily defeated with a large number of counter-examples. The point that the comment you replied to was trying to make, is that people like me (i.e. who have white friends who have struggled against tremendous odds to make it to where they are in life, such as people from Kosovo who escaped a warzone, as one relevant personal example of many) do not appreciate it when the success and hard work of many of the white folks whom we know in our lives, are reduced to mere privilege, when their individual stories and struggles are often unique and heartbreaking. While there may certainly be a significant proportion of cases where "white privilege" plays a huge role, to condemn an entire demographic of people by dismissing their success to be a consequence of privilege, is an insult to their individual struggles, which in many cases, are anything but privileged. There are plenty of people who are quick to dismiss someone because of the color of their skin, than listen to their individual story.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women Yes, they have, because discrimination against women is still widely practiced. It's true that the scope and extent of discrimination in law has been almost entirely eliminated (one of the last major elements to fall being the military combat exclusion policy, lifting of which was fully implemented less than two years ago; given the significance of combat assignments in military career progression and the practical impacts of military careers on both elected and certain other high-level government positions, there are a lot of men in the military and government office today that are, now, benefitting from the effects of that direct, legally-mandated discrimination.)
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  For real? Women were excluded from combat because they are physically weaker than men and weak soldiers tend to get each other killed. That rule had a very concrete physical, medical and military justification. I think if that's the best example you can find, it says a lot about my point. There are dozens of ways men are discriminated against in law. As you yourself admit, discrimination against women in law has been eliminated. This is not progress!

wpietri 9y ago

I am a man. I am definitely privileged because of it. Many men make similar observations: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-t...

peoplewindow 9y ago
That article doesn't list one concrete example of how being a straight white male actually made life easier for him. I can and have listed several major, specific ways in which it's the opposite. I hate to use the T-word but this sort of non-argument you've just presented is exactly why Trump won. It's just racist, sexist self-loathing based on nothing whatsoever. If there was something, that guy would have listed a variety of specific grievances, as would every feminist article in every newspaper (of which there are huge quantity every single day). You know what the last specific complaint in a feminist opinion piece I read was? An article a few days ago that was upset because the only female shoes in emoji are high heels. Don't tell people white male privilege exists when you can't back it up.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > [something] is exactly why Trump won No. Trump won through the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, rampant GOP gerrymandering, a terrifyingly complicit and supine media, an institutionally racist and sexist country backlashing to Obama, and an electoral system that vastly overpowers the majority white (and racist) Southern states.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary, perhaps due to her massive campaign spending. Regardless, I think when your explanation is "the entire USA is racist and sexist" you are - again - making my point for me. I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. But if you constantly tell ordinary, hard working and honest people that their whole life is a fraud, that their success isn't really success, it's just "white male privilege", and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? They're going to get mad and start quietly voting for someone who fights back against that culture. That's what I meant and I'm sure you know it.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > The supine and complicit media came out near 100% in support of Hillary Yes, that explains the overwhelming concentration on the email "scandal" whilst ignoring literally everything that Trump said. > I know lots of Americans and I've never seen a shred of racism or sexism in any of them. That's ... not how it works. > and you can't point out a single reason why ... guess what? But the reasons are pointed out. They just get ignored because the kind of people who refuse to believe that "white male privilege" exists aren't the kind of people who listen to rational arguments.
      - fareesh 9y ago
        > Yes, that explains the overwhelming concentration on the email "scandal" whilst ignoring literally everything that Trump said. It was not entirely undeserved though - the scandal was certainly newsworthy and had many unprecedented events. The Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting was highly inappropriate, leading to the eventual decision falling to James Comey. James Comey had earlier, much to the dismay of Republicans, chosen not to pursue Bill Clinton's incredibly dubious pardon of Marc Rich. When he announced that they would not seek prosecution, his reasoning was that there was plenty of negligence but no intent - an interpretation of the statute that had not been used in previous cases for which many have been convicted. To make matters worse, Secretary Clinton fainted on September 11 at a memorial service for 9/11 and the press was nowhere to be found when it happened. A random bystander managed to get footage of her security detail awkwardly putting her into a van. This is less than 2 months before the election. The campaign response started with "overheating" and then went to pneumonia. Over the weeks prior to this, there was an all-out media blitzkrieg dismissing rumors of her ill health as a conspiracy theory. She herself lied straight into the camera about her health, to the extent that she went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and opened a pickle jar as a gag. This was a mere 2 weeks before she passed out. Around the same time, John Podesta's leaked emails had revealed the tremendous influence the campaign seemed to have with the press, and the media in general. One could argue that this is simply "how the sausage is made" when it comes to political campaigns, but to much of the general public, this sort of insight was unprecedented. This kind of story is severely damaging to any candidate. When the footage of her collapsing came out, it served to validate what the right leaning media had been saying all along, plus reinforced fears of mainstream media collusion revealed in the emails were not unfounded, since the left leaning media had gone to bat for her when the health stories came out, and had no cameras present during a major development in the campaign which would have hurt her perception with the voting public. This significantly undermined the perception of integrity in the media. As damage control, the media did more negative stories in the months leading up to the election. > They just get ignored because the kind of people who refuse to believe that "white male privilege" exists aren't the kind of people who listen to rational arguments. There is no evidence to suggest that they are being willfully ignored, nor that people are being irrational in their refusal to believe, nor does it flow logically. This privilege certainly exists in several contexts, but to generalize across an entire demographic of people is easily defeated with a large number of counter-examples. The point that the comment you replied to was trying to make, is that people like me (i.e. who have white friends who have struggled against tremendous odds to make it to where they are in life, such as people from Kosovo who escaped a warzone, as one relevant personal example of many) do not appreciate it when the success and hard work of many of the white folks whom we know in our lives, are reduced to mere privilege, when their individual stories and struggles are often unique and heartbreaking. While there may certainly be a significant proportion of cases where "white privilege" plays a huge role, to condemn an entire demographic of people by dismissing their success to be a consequence of privilege, is an insult to their individual struggles, which in many cases, are anything but privileged. There are plenty of people who are quick to dismiss someone because of the color of their skin, than listen to their individual story.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Men alive today unless perhaps very old have not benefited from discrimination against women Yes, they have, because discrimination against women is still widely practiced. It's true that the scope and extent of discrimination in law has been almost entirely eliminated (one of the last major elements to fall being the military combat exclusion policy, lifting of which was fully implemented less than two years ago; given the significance of combat assignments in military career progression and the practical impacts of military careers on both elected and certain other high-level government positions, there are a lot of men in the military and government office today that are, now, benefitting from the effects of that direct, legally-mandated discrimination.)

peoplewindow 9y ago
For real? Women were excluded from combat because they are physically weaker than men and weak soldiers tend to get each other killed. That rule had a very concrete physical, medical and military justification. I think if that's the best example you can find, it says a lot about my point. There are dozens of ways men are discriminated against in law. As you yourself admit, discrimination against women in law has been eliminated. This is not progress!