3 ms·

I am not sure I follow. Are you saying straight white men’s actions are not labeled political while other people’s actions are discounted as political and thus

• hnbad 5y ago
  No, they're talking about some people's entire existence being political. White/male/straight is the social default. Just consider movies and games: if a character is a woman, non-white, or non-straight, let alone trans, that's considered the director/developers making a political statement. And it only gets worse if they don't at least "behave" like white/male/straight characters. The same is true for workplaces. A woman in an otherwise all-male team is far more likely to be accepted if she masks her femininity and acts like "one of the guys". A Black person will be more accepted if they "act white". Queer folks better just not mention anything related to their sexuality even if it would be normal for straight/cis folks. And if they get any jabs targeted at their identity they better just laugh it off and not "cause a scene" and upset anyone.
  • digitaltrees 5y ago
    If you invert your statement it is exactly the same discriminatory focus. It would effectively say White/male/straight exist as a dominant cultural force that is inherently political. They can’t exist without imposing their norms on others. This position focuses on race, gender, sexuality as much as any other form of discrimination. Rather than focusing on the differences we could focus on common ground and the value of inclusion. It’s not necessary to focus on differences and vilified existence of white/male/strait people.