6 ms·

"the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history." Millions of these "luckiest" babies are s

"the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history." Millions of these "luckiest" babies are suffering from crippling illnesses, yet they are treated like they are awash with privilege solely because they are white and male. This is racism and sexism. Disabled white men are not privileged.

wbronitsky 7y ago
This argument does not address the point. No one said that lucky means perfect; everything is relative. It can be (and is) true that you can be the luckiest baby in history and have "crippling illness". You can both be privileged and disadvantaged on different axes at the same time. I think you misunderstand racism and sexism. These refer to power structures that oppress people, not inborn disadvantages.
- wavepruner 7y ago
  There are power structures being built to counteract the older power structures of predominately white male society. These power structures aim to exclude white men in an attempt to make up for historical discrepancy. Unfortunately, disability is often not taken into account, and so we now have power structures that discriminate against white men whether they are disabled or not. Empowering a healthy, able-bodied woman/black-person/whatever at the expense of a disabled person of any background is not okay, but it is done all the time. I've personally experienced this a lot in the past few years. It never happened pre-2016. If you don't agree that there are power structures discriminating against white men, then we would have to have a much longer discussion for me to get my point across.
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    plays worlds tiniest violin I am truly speechless. Later HN, its been good.
    - wavepruner 7y ago
      I'm just trying to find a way to stay alive. I don't understand why I get so much hate for that. I can't take care of the oppression other minorities face. I can't even take care of myself.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - MockObject 7y ago
        wbronitsky's comment was horrible, yet exemplary of so much. I, on the other hand, wish you the very best of luck.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
komali2 7y ago
They're certainly more privileged than disabled black babies. Take any example you like. Poor. Genetic disease. Whatever. Stick black on that baby and you've just made their lives another degree harder.
- Papirola 7y ago
  non-American here: how would that extra hardship manifest? and wouldn't that be illegal?
  - komali2 7y ago
    > how would that extra hardship manifest Increased likelihood that their failure to respond to a cop's orders due to, let's say their deafness, results in them being shot dead. > wouldn't that be illegal? You'd think so, but no.
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    Making something illegal does not stop people for continuing to perpetuate that something. We have this conversation here all the time, and I think we can all agree that legality is not the beginning nor the end of equity. Put another way: making something illegal does not solve the problem, and asserting that does does makes it harder to solve problems.
akuchling 7y ago
The point of "privilege" is not that all white men have lives of luxury and pleasure, but that society is arranged so that people of type X get cut a certain amount of slack that non-X people don't get. Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.
- charliesharding 7y ago
  > Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles. This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not two months ago there was a top voted article about how dangerous and stifling the "victimhood mentality" can be. If that is true, why would you so willingly put an entire race of people in the victim bucket? It smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I am and always will be on your side if you're advocating for personal empowerment of people and groups but I disagree with the tactic of using group membership as the most important deciding factor of someone's experience and a means to discredit one person over another due solely to the nature of their group intersections.
  - UncleMeat 7y ago
    That's not the conclusion here. The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other. The kind of thinking you describe was more common in the 60s and 70s but has fallen out of favor after the rise of black feminism and intersectional analysis. Race does not bind more tightly than other aspects. Ableism exists. But the existence of white people who suffer in a myriad of ways does not negate the existence of white privilege in places like the US.
    - charliesharding 7y ago
      > The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.
wavepruner 7y ago
I should have clarified in my original post that I'm referring to men with disabilities that are not immediately apparent. I imagine visibly disabled men are not treated as if they are awash with privilege.

wbronitsky 7y ago

This argument does not address the point. No one said that lucky means perfect; everything is relative. It can be (and is) true that you can be the luckiest baby in history and have "crippling illness". You can both be privileged and disadvantaged on different axes at the same time. I think you misunderstand racism and sexism. These refer to power structures that oppress people, not inborn disadvantages.

wavepruner 7y ago
There are power structures being built to counteract the older power structures of predominately white male society. These power structures aim to exclude white men in an attempt to make up for historical discrepancy. Unfortunately, disability is often not taken into account, and so we now have power structures that discriminate against white men whether they are disabled or not. Empowering a healthy, able-bodied woman/black-person/whatever at the expense of a disabled person of any background is not okay, but it is done all the time. I've personally experienced this a lot in the past few years. It never happened pre-2016. If you don't agree that there are power structures discriminating against white men, then we would have to have a much longer discussion for me to get my point across.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  plays worlds tiniest violin I am truly speechless. Later HN, its been good.
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    I'm just trying to find a way to stay alive. I don't understand why I get so much hate for that. I can't take care of the oppression other minorities face. I can't even take care of myself.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - MockObject 7y ago
      wbronitsky's comment was horrible, yet exemplary of so much. I, on the other hand, wish you the very best of luck.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

komali2 7y ago

They're certainly more privileged than disabled black babies. Take any example you like. Poor. Genetic disease. Whatever. Stick black on that baby and you've just made their lives another degree harder.

Papirola 7y ago
non-American here: how would that extra hardship manifest? and wouldn't that be illegal?
- komali2 7y ago
  > how would that extra hardship manifest Increased likelihood that their failure to respond to a cop's orders due to, let's say their deafness, results in them being shot dead. > wouldn't that be illegal? You'd think so, but no.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  Making something illegal does not stop people for continuing to perpetuate that something. We have this conversation here all the time, and I think we can all agree that legality is not the beginning nor the end of equity. Put another way: making something illegal does not solve the problem, and asserting that does does makes it harder to solve problems.

akuchling 7y ago

The point of "privilege" is not that all white men have lives of luxury and pleasure, but that society is arranged so that people of type X get cut a certain amount of slack that non-X people don't get. Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.

charliesharding 7y ago
> Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles. This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not two months ago there was a top voted article about how dangerous and stifling the "victimhood mentality" can be. If that is true, why would you so willingly put an entire race of people in the victim bucket? It smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I am and always will be on your side if you're advocating for personal empowerment of people and groups but I disagree with the tactic of using group membership as the most important deciding factor of someone's experience and a means to discredit one person over another due solely to the nature of their group intersections.
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  That's not the conclusion here. The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other. The kind of thinking you describe was more common in the 60s and 70s but has fallen out of favor after the rise of black feminism and intersectional analysis. Race does not bind more tightly than other aspects. Ableism exists. But the existence of white people who suffer in a myriad of ways does not negate the existence of white privilege in places like the US.
  - charliesharding 7y ago
    > The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.

wavepruner 7y ago

I should have clarified in my original post that I'm referring to men with disabilities that are not immediately apparent. I imagine visibly disabled men are not treated as if they are awash with privilege.