Gender Equality... or naw

[mrmee]

Is it just me, or do women and african americans seem to have the tables turned when it comes to equality? Way back when, if you were a white male, you had everything compared to slavery and sexism. Nowadays though, we have a black history month, and a womans history month. What month is devoted to white males then may i ask? And on tv there is a commercial for "black people meet", an all black dating site. Can you imagine the commotion if there was a white people meet?
Now im not saying women and black people are free of discrimination, so dont get all "you racist, sexist piece of shit", but in certian cases, "equality" has gone further than it shouldve.

[Elysium]

"White male history month" is literally the entire year round. Look in any history book and find tons of information about all the white, male historical figures in history. Think of it this way: white males are already on top of everyone else. So what if we give African Americans and women a stepping stone with history months and whatever acknowledgements? That doesn't put them on par with white males, and why would you want to get even further ahead when you're already ahead? That certainly doesn't promote equality, does it?

The best analogy I've heard of is from tumblr. The reason white males don't have a history month or anything like that is the same reason why you don't get the angel shell power up when you're in first place in Mario Kart. A little silly, but hey, it makes some sort of sense.

[Atonement]

"White male history month" is literally the entire year round.

This is spot on.

To address you specific points:

We don't have a white history month because white history isn't excluded from textbooks or ignored in literature classes. It's typically the focus.

We don't have white people meet because white people meet through the mainstream services like dating sites. Also, because in many places white people are the majority, it is easier for white people to meet anyway. More black people live in white communities as minorities than white people live in black communities as minorities.



The bottom line is that if you look at indices like pay gaps, unemployment rates, education rates, etc. you will see that racial minorities and women are consistently underpaid and lack power in our societies. This is why they get months.

[CharlieHorse]

We don't have a white history month because white history isn't excluded from textbooks or ignored in literature classes.

And also because the history of white people hasn't been destroyed by people conquering their lands.

[Karkat]

I feel like everyone else has already done a pretty good job summing it up, just wanted to add that white males literally have no downside to these months/etc., whereas minorities most certainly are disadvantaged by these majority groups.

It's not even like Black History Month hurts any white males. However, the fact that history is centered towards the majority (white males) hurts the minorities.

Basically, minorities tend to get shoved aside. This is why things like this exist- to work on bringing minorities back into the spotlight. Arguably that's problematic in and of itself to some extent, but I'll not get into that, partially because I'm not sure how I feel about it.

[Horatio Nelson]

This is spot on.

To address you specific points:

We don't have a white history month because white history isn't excluded from textbooks or ignored in literature classes. It's typically the focus.

We don't have white people meet because white people meet through the mainstream services like dating sites. Also, because in many places white people are the majority, it is easier for white people to meet anyway. More black people live in white communities as minorities than white people live in black communities as minorities.



The bottom line is that if you look at indices like pay gaps, unemployment rates, education rates, etc. you will see that racial minorities and women are consistently underpaid and lack power in our societies. This is why they get months.

This.



To the OP: I sort of understand your mindset, but it is a very naïve one at that. To say the "white male" is under appreciated or what have you, is quite blasphemous. The whole of society is catered toward the white male.

For example, the current POTUS is looked down upon by certain people only because he has a darker skin tone than they. Racism is quite literally judging something by the way it looks.

So, in closing, don't expect to see "White history month" anytime soon.

[thatcountrykid]

The history book argument is really pointless. The fact of the matter is that white men just happened to have done a lot more historical things than there have black men.

Personally I think if people want equality, they need to quit bitching about needing their own special things, don't play victim, and act like your equal.

[Karkat]

The history book argument is really pointless. The fact of the matter is that white men just happened to have done a lot more historical things than there have black men.

Personally I think if people want equality, they need to quit bitching about needing their own special things, don't play victim, and act like your equal.

I'm assuming you're not a minority.

[James Dean]

If you aren't apart of those minorities or culture groups, then it might be harder to relate or explain why it is important for them to have recognition. Sometimes it's nice to finally be in this day in age where in the past people said that group wouldn't achieve anything, wouldn't amount to anything, and we wouldn't treat as human. Many people also get discriminated against even in today's society. Basically what I'm saying, it's nice to feel important or symbolized. The white race is obviously respected and acknowledged, so it's nice to acknowledge other groups that feel they deserve it.

[thatcountrykid]

I'm assuming you're not a minority.

I'm part Hispanic and Native American. I have a darker skin tone.

[Horatio Nelson]

The history book argument is really pointless. The fact of the matter is that white men just happened to have done a lot more historical things than there have black men.

Personally I think if people want equality, they need to quit bitching about needing their own special things, don't play victim, and act like your equal.

I'm sorry, but that post made you sound extremely Naïve. Just because you haven't read an African history book doesn't mean they have "done less".

[CosmicNoodle]

I want to make a slightly inteligent response, but my mind refused to work, seriously, I tried to read and my mind just shouted "Nooooooooooooooo"

[Broken Toy]

People tiptoe waaaaay too much around minorities. Like, yes you can point out if someone stood out because there black, that's not racist, its biology.
More white people are concerned about racism than black people. There are a few minority groups who have learned that pulling the racist/fascist card can work but mostly there isn't a great deal of racism around. Even when there is, it is dealt with appropriately.

And no, although whites, men and straights (well kind of, a few people in history had a habit of touching boys, hence the steretype of priests) have had the better of history, there is no such thing as white, male or straight priviledge, that's called pulling a non existent victim card.

Rant over.

[thatcountrykid]

I'm sorry, but that post made you sound extremely Naïve. Just because you haven't read an African history book doesn't mean they have "done less".

I'm not saying they do less. There are tons of historic African American but I'm saying that a majority of major major historical event you see where done by whites

[Vlerchan]

I'm just interested in this claim. But I'd happily take issue with everything else you've posted if you want.

And no, although whites, men and straights ... have had the better of history, there is no such thing as white, male or straight priviledge, that's called pulling a non existent victim card.
No. Social Privilege is quite well-documented. It's more covert now than it ever was - but it still exists.

Here's an example of white privilege in action which I've shown you before:

[indent] On monday, the ACLU of Southern California released a report analyzing more than 700,000 cases in which Los Angeles Police Department officers stopped pedestrians and/or drivers of motor vehicles between July 2003 and June 2004.

The study, which I wrote with my research assistant, Jonathan Borowsky, asked not simply whether African Americans and Latinos are stopped and searched by the LAPD more often than whites -- it's clear that they are -- but the more complex question of whether these racial disparities are justified by legitimate policing practices, such as deciding to police more aggressively in high-crime neighborhoods.

We found persistent and statistically significant racial disparities in policing that raise grave concerns that African Americans and Latinos in Los Angeles are, as we put it in the report, "over-stopped, over-frisked, over-searched and over-arrested." After controlling for violent crime rates and property crime rates in specific neighborhoods, as well as a host of other variables, we found the following:

For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.

Stopped blacks are 76% more likely to be searched, and stopped Latinos are 16% more likely to be searched than stopped whites.

Stopped blacks are 29% more likely to be arrested, and stopped Latinos are 32% more likely to be arrested than stopped whites.

Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband. We found similar patterns for Latinos.

Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/opinion/oe-ayres23

I find the vertical and horizontal occupational segregation which contributes to wage gaps within the same sector (http://www.epi.org/publication/restaurant-workers/) to also be a good indicator of the existence of social privilege and inequality. Unless you want to offer another suggestion as to why wage gaps exist within the fast-food industry in particular and society in general

[Karkat]

I'm part Hispanic and Native American. I have a darker skin tone.

Making you more naïve than I previously thought.

I want to make a slightly inteligent response, but my mind refused to work, seriously, I tried to read and my mind just shouted "Nooooooooooooooo"

I get that. I totally totally get that.

People tiptoe waaaaay too much around minorities. Like, yes you can point out if someone stood out because there black, that's not racist, its biology.
More white people are concerned about racism than black people. There are a few minority groups who have learned that pulling the racist/fascist card can work but mostly there isn't a great deal of racism around. Even when there is, it is dealt with appropriately.

And no, although whites, men and straights (well kind of, a few people in history had a habit of touching boys, hence the steretype of priests) have had the better of history, there is no such thing as white, male or straight priviledge, that's called pulling a non existent victim card.

Rant over.

...Naïveté. The fact that you say this practically proves that privilege exists.

It's rare that you see minorities deny privilege because a lot of minorities get mulled over, and they don't like that.

Racism isn't nearly as big of a deal as it was say 40+ years ago, but it's still alive. Maybe not institutionally, but there are plenty of racist people out there.

Sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are still HUGE problems. And when you're heterosexual, cisgender, and male, you DEFINITELY have the upper hand.

Considering the fact that MOST cisgender people can dress in the clothes they want, use the bathroom they need, etc., and are taken seriously as a person, not shunned or asked invasive, inappropriate questions, or given nasty looks, they have the privilege. They don't have to deal with "standing out" or "being different".

Considering the fact that MOST heterosexual people can make advances or ask someone out on a date without worrying about if the other person is straight, that they can date, marry, etc. without being shunned- possibly killed in some countries, that they aren't denied entry from some countries, they don't get kicked out of their houses for their sexuality or bullied at school for it, they have the privilege. They also have sexual education, heterosexual couples are constantly in film, they have the vast majority of movies, and they are blatantly, BLATANTLY normalized.

Considering the fact that MOST men don't have to worry about being attacked if they walk alone at night, or that their date might slip something in their drink, they they can't wear the clothes they want without nasty comments being made, or being called names, being treated a certain way (with the exception of women's clothing, but this is made possible a la transphobia and homophobia, so), they don't have to worry about being cat called or sexually harassed in bars and clubs, etc., they have the privilege.

Now it's not to say that men don't have problems, but they also have to do with sexism.

Any problems one would face for being straight, white, or cisgender has to do with the problems of the reverse group existing in the first place.

So we've got all those awful, unfunny BuzzFeed articles on how terrible white people are either because someone who isn't white has a vendetta and knows they can get away with it, or some cracker out there is trying to pander to minority friends. Get some humor first, pal.

And you've also got all these little cisgender straight white boys who are getting SLAUGHTERED on Tumblr because sjw are idiots. They're way too sensitive, and they have giant sticks up their asses. Actually, a lot of internet social justice bloggers are that way. I can't read certain sections of BuzzFeed or Refinery29 without retching. I can't read Huffington Post or Upworthy without wanting to shoot myself.

Privilege exists. It's not nearly as big of a deal as all these idiot "social justice" bloggers make it out to be, but the fact that minorities face problems majority groups wouldn't *dream* of makes it totally an issue.

Because the majorities continue to do nothing about the problem, and the minorities continue to get assfucked.

I'm not saying they do less. There are tons of historic African American but I'm saying that a majority of major major historical event you see where done by whites

Because the white people betrayed and killed everyone. Have you... Actually read up on any history?

[Vlerchan]

Racism isn't nearly as big of a deal as it was say 40+ years ago, but it's still alive. Maybe not institutionally, but there are plenty of racist people out there.
It is still institutionalised. It is just not (obviously) enshrined in our legal systems.

[Karkat]

It is still institutionalised. It is just not (obviously) enshrined in our legal systems.

I think I meant sexism wasn't institutionalized, but oh well. I read your previous post, and it makes sense now. :P

[Broken Toy]

Making you more naïve than I previously thought.
,
?

IM sorry, i agree with you normally, but that's just wrong.

Its the classic 'let me be offended for you.' you claim he isn't a minority for his ideology then when it turns out he is, you call him naive.
No. Its his opinion. He's a minority who happens to think that white people just happened to do more. He would be naive to say "minorities were never victims in history" but he didn't.


My brain worked enough to respond to this, that's good.

"Here's an example of white privilege in action which I've shown you before:
[indent]"
That's not privilege. The definition of privilege requires someone to benfit from it. Minorities are hindered, whites are not, whites have not benefited from the hinderence of others, therefore its simply racism. Don't blame a majority for the trouble of a minority (yes i accept a good few of those officers were white, but its not the race of white peoples faults)

"Considering the fact that MOST men don't have to worry about being attacked if they walk alone at night, or that their date might slip something in their drink"
Don't mention this, i constantly worry, not even at night. I register features about people around me face so that if they attacked me i could picture them. Yes that's excessive but i don't try to do it and im not alone in the thought that a man could easily be attacked.

I still don't believe there's a privilege as there is no one benefitting but some hindered. Anyway, i might consider it more seriously if it wasn't for such things as the recent battle about the red sox. It was so stupid and again 'let me be offended'. They polled native Americans to see if they found the name offensive and there was a turnover of like 98% thought not. It trivialises racism to the point that it loses value as a term, and its the fault of people like sjw's.


Ps. Don't get into a full debate on this vlerchan, you know that unless i become a feminist or you become an egalitarian i can agree slightly with you but you will never agree with me, a debate without progress is just an argument

[Karkat]

IM sorry, i agree with you normally, but that's just wrong.

Its the classic 'let me be offended for you.' you claim he isn't a minority for his ideology then when it turns out he is, you call him naive.
No. Its his opinion. He's a minority who happens to think that white people just happened to do more. He would be naive to say "minorities were never victims in history" but he didn't.


My brain worked enough to respond to this, that's good.

"Here's an example of white privilege in action which I've shown you before:
[indent]"
That's not privilege. The definition of privilege requires someone to benfit from it. Minorities are hindered, whites are not, whites have not benefited from the hinderence of others, therefore its simply racism. Don't blame a majority for the trouble of a minority (yes i accept a good few of those officers were white, but its not the race of white peoples faults)

"Considering the fact that MOST men don't have to worry about being attacked if they walk alone at night, or that their date might slip something in their drink"
Don't mention this, i constantly worry, not even at night. I register features about people around me face so that if they attacked me i could picture them. Yes that's excessive but i don't try to do it and im not alone in the thought that a man could easily be attacked.

I still don't believe there's a privilege as there is no one benefitting but some hindered. Anyway, i might consider it more seriously if it wasn't for such things as the recent battle about the red sox. It was so stupid and again 'let me be offended'. They polled native Americans to see if they found the name offensive and there was a turnover of like 98% thought not. It trivialises racism to the point that it loses value as a term, and its the fault of people like sjw's.


Ps. Don't get into a full debate on this vlerchan, you know that unless i become a feminist or you become an egalitarian i can agree slightly with you but you will never agree with me, a debate without progress is just an argument

Opinion doesn't trump fact. Ever.

Um, you CAN blame the majority for the problems of the minority, because they are directly correlated. In this case, correlation does very much equal causation. This isn't some "pirates are causing global warming" outrageous claim, the two are very much connected.

And I can say he's naïve, because it does require a significant amount of naïveté (to put it nicely) to try and pass off opinion as fact.

Also, I believe you mean Redskins, and I'm going to completely ignore any figures you bring up unless you can source them. I'm offended by the fact that someone decided a racist caricature could be a mascot STILL, in this modern day and age.

This is a debate thread. In a debate forum. If you do not wish to debate, then leave.

[Vlerchan]

The definition of privilege requires someone to benfit from it.
I think whites benefit from not being oppressed.

Do you not believe that a groups lack of oppression doesn't give them an advantage over groups that are oppressed? If so I would appreciate an explanation why.

Here's a paper done by the St. Louis FED in America into the existence of red-lining in the US though. It is undeniable that this gives white people a significant advantage over black people:

We investigate whether race and ethnicity influenced subprime loan pricing during 2005, the peak of the subprime mortgage expansion. We combine loan-level data on the performance of non-prime securitized mortgages with individual- and neighborhood-level data on racial and ethnic characteristics for metropolitan areas in California and Florida. Using a model of rate determination that accounts for predicted loan performance, we evaluate the differences in subprime mortgage rates in terms of racial and ethnic groups and neighborhood characteristics. We find evidence of adverse pricing for blacks and Hispanics. The evidence of adverse pricing is strongest for purchase mortgages and mortgages originated by non-depository institutions.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2011-033

But try deny it anyway. Go on.

Don't blame a majority for the trouble of a minority (yes i accept a good few of those officers were white, but its not the race of white peoples faults)
Please quote where I expressly blamed majorities.

I still don't believe there's a privilege as there is no one benefitting but some hindered.
I suggest you study sociology at some point in your life.

Everything I say will be a lot more appealing once you have a grounding if the field that I'm arguing in.

Anyway, i might consider it more seriously if it wasn't for such things as the recent battle about the red sox. It was so stupid and again 'let me be offended'. They polled native Americans to see if they found the name offensive and there was a turnover of like 98% thought not.

[When asked:]The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.

American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement. Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses. The neutral category played a significant role for whites in allowing them to not be seen as “racist” – upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

What do you know? The use of a term that reduces Native Americans to a characteristic that they don't even hold is seen as degrading by Native Americans.

Ps. Don't get into a full debate on this vlerchan, you know that unless i become a feminist or you become an egalitarian i can agree slightly with you but you will never agree with me, a debate without progress is just an argument.
You're a liberal feminist. I'm a radical feminist.

That's the correct terms for our positions.

---

Um, you CAN blame the majority for the problems of the minority, because they are directly correlated.
Minorities are socialised to perpetuate the societal norms that result in their advantaged position within society. Unless someone is concious of their privilege and still strives to perpetuate the societal norms that create it I don't see the justice in placing blame on them.

I think I meant sexism wasn't institutionalized, but oh well.
Patriarchy is the name of the system that underpins the categorical privilege of males

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnbPsIFgT8Y)

[Karkat]

I think whites benefit from not being oppressed.

Do you not believe that a groups lack of oppression doesn't give them an advantage over groups that are oppressed? If so I would appreciate an explanation why.

Here's a paper done by the St. Louis FED in America into the existence of red-lining in the US though. It is undeniable that this gives white people a significant advantage over black people:

We investigate whether race and ethnicity influenced subprime loan pricing during 2005, the peak of the subprime mortgage expansion. We combine loan-level data on the performance of non-prime securitized mortgages with individual- and neighborhood-level data on racial and ethnic characteristics for metropolitan areas in California and Florida. Using a model of rate determination that accounts for predicted loan performance, we evaluate the differences in subprime mortgage rates in terms of racial and ethnic groups and neighborhood characteristics. We find evidence of adverse pricing for blacks and Hispanics. The evidence of adverse pricing is strongest for purchase mortgages and mortgages originated by non-depository institutions.

But try deny it anyway. Go on.


Please quote where I expressly blamed majorities.


I suggest you study sociology at some point in your life.

Everything I say will be a lot more appealing once you have a grounding if the field that I'm arguing in.



[When asked:]The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.

American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement. Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses. The neutral category played a significant role for whites in allowing them to not be seen as “racist” – upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

What do you know? The use of a term that reduces Native Americans to a characteristic that they don't even hold is seen as degrading by Native Americans.


You're a liberal feminist. I'm a radical feminist.

That's the correct terms for our positions.

---


Minorities are socialised to perpetuate the societal norms that result in their advantaged position within society. Unless someone is concious of their privilege and still strives to perpetuate the societal norms that create it I don't see the justice in placing blame on them.


Patriarchy is the name of the system that underpins the categorical privilege of males

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnbPsIFgT8Y)

Well, alright, I'll admit that it isn't intentional or antagonistic- I didn't really mean to come off that way, but it's more as a result of the majority having the power.

People with power tend to become megalomaniacs, and megalomaniacs don't like to share. It's pretty apparent that minorities are underrepresented, and it's not because they don't "work hard enough" as these two gentleman seem to think is evident. It's because the person with the power is going to choose his similar-minded buddies over anyone who is unfamiliar because that's kind of the way the world works.

I guess I meant more that everyone else gets screwed over because of it, and THIS is very much a problem. Unless you're part of the majority.

[Vlerchan]

Well, alright, I'll admit that it isn't intentional or antagonistic- I didn't really mean to come off that way, but it's more as a result of the majority having the power.
Right. I'm just making the point that if something is not intentional or antagonistic then I don't see the justice in blaming the people who benefit. Even if there was a valid basis to blame the people in power though I'd argue against attributing blame - it will only put them on the defensive and that's likely to damage your case if not undermine it completely.

Also I'm sorry if I seemed snappy there. I sort of had some organs removed today and am not in the best of moods.

[Karkat]

Right. I'm just making the point that if something is not intentional or antagonistic then I don't see the justice in blaming the people who benefit. Even if there was a valid basis to blame the people in power though I'd argue against attributing blame - it will only put them on the defensive and that's likely to damage your case if not undermine it completely.

Also I'm sorry if I seemed snappy there. I sort of had some organs removed today and am not in the best of moods.

No yeah, it makes sense.

No, you're fine! Eh, neither am I, plus that's totally understandable. Feel better soon. :)

[Broken Toy]

Opinion doesn't trump fact. Ever.

Um, you CAN blame the majority for the problems of the minority, because they are directly correlated. In this case, correlation does very much equal causation. This isn't some "pirates are causing global warming" outrageous claim, the two are very much connected.

And I can say he's naïve, because it does require a significant amount of naïveté (to put it nicely) to try and pass off opinion as fact.

Also, I believe you mean Redskins, and I'm going to completely ignore any figures you bring up unless you can source them. I'm offended by the fact that someone decided a racist caricature could be a mascot STILL, in this modern day and age.

This is a debate thread. In a debate forum. If you do not wish to debate, then leave.


Thank you, all i could think of was red something. As i say, don't cry racist the second something that one random person calls controversial is given linelight:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/



And i don't think that thatcountrykid did try and pass off opinion as fact, he stated his, and your immediate counter was to call him and me naive. I take offence that someone calls me naive for my opinion without having the evidence to explain how i am naive. The point is, i KNOW that i cannot be called naive because at least some of mu opinion has a basis.

And yes, this is a debate forum, but as i said previously, between me and vlerchan would be an argument, with my stance as an egalitarian and his as a radical feminist. I am open to accept his opinion but as part of his opinion he cant accept mine, there's no point in it

I think whites benefit from not being oppressed.

Do you not believe that a groups lack of oppression doesn't give them an advantage over groups that are oppressed? If so I would appreciate an explanation why.

Here's a paper done by the St. Louis FED in America into the existence of red-lining in the US though. It is undeniable that this gives white people a significant advantage over black people:

We investigate whether race and ethnicity influenced subprime loan pricing during 2005, the peak of the subprime mortgage expansion. We combine loan-level data on the performance of non-prime securitized mortgages with individual- and neighborhood-level data on racial and ethnic characteristics for metropolitan areas in California and Florida. Using a model of rate determination that accounts for predicted loan performance, we evaluate the differences in subprime mortgage rates in terms of racial and ethnic groups and neighborhood characteristics. We find evidence of adverse pricing for blacks and Hispanics. The evidence of adverse pricing is strongest for purchase mortgages and mortgages originated by non-depository institutions.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/more/2011-033

But try deny it anyway. Go on.


Please quote where I expressly blamed majorities.


I suggest you study sociology at some point in your life.

Everything I say will be a lot more appealing once you have a grounding if the field that I'm arguing in.



[When asked:]The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol.

American Indians were 67 % in agreement, 12 % were neutral and 20 % disagreed with the statement. Other ethnic groups are spread across the three major categories of seeing the term Redskins as racist, as neutral, or disagreeing in seeing Redskins as racially offensive. Whites were 33% in agreement, 26% neutral, and 41% disagreed the term was racial, generally the reverse of American Indian responses. The neutral category played a significant role for whites in allowing them to not be seen as “racist” – upon further analysis more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist.

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

What do you know? The use of a term that reduces Native Americans to a characteristic that they don't even hold is seen as degrading by Native Americans.


You're a liberal feminist. I'm a radical feminist.

That's the correct terms for our positions.

---


Minorities are socialised to perpetuate the societal norms that result in their advantaged position within society. Unless someone is concious of their privilege and still strives to perpetuate the societal norms that create it I don't see the justice in placing blame on them.


Patriarchy is the name of the system that underpins the categorical privilege of males

[soundtrack] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnbPsIFgT8Y)

How can you blame a majority (that's whites it sounded as though you though i was accusing you of something, i just meant you blame white people when there's a small amount of then to blame) for having a benefit. I mean, do you also blame the "first world countries" which would include you for the underdevelopment of "third world countries" (give me a better term for it, those phrases are really disrespectful). I haven't seen anyone, including you, throwing away their benefits over these countries. Its the same thing.

One place (race) is better off, you blame the countries better off (Ireland fits that category)
So by your logic you must therefore blame yourself and deal with your own privilege or you should lead a charge against the developments of "first world countries" till everyone is on a level playing field.

Apparently our sorces investigated some different native Americans huh? And don't tell me to deny it like that, i might just take you up on the offer then everyone will get bored.

IM not a liberal feminist (the capitals are not me, that's my phone).

Sorry to quote dictionarys (i know, shoot me now) but the whole term feminist is to fight for the rights of specifically women (or apparently any minority they can get their hands on then reinforce a victim complex to them) whereas egalitarianism is about fighting for everyone's rights.
But i cant argue, you're definitely a radical feminist. You a literally the scourge of equal rights. And the funny thing is if you got together with and MRA you would actually balance out and create equal rights.

[Vlerchan]

I am open to accept his opinion but as part of his opinion he cant accept mine, there's no point in it.
I'd be open to your opinion if it was backed up with empirical evidence.

It's not though.

If I'm anything I'm open to people's opinions.

How can you blame a majority (that's whites it sounded as though you though i was accusing you of something, i just meant you blame white people when there's a small amount of then to blame) for having a benefit.
I expressly stated I don't.

[Majorities] are socialised to perpetuate the societal norms that result in their advantaged position within society. Unless someone is conscious of their privilege and still strives to perpetuate the societal norms that create it I don't see the justice in placing blame on them.

I edited out the typo in the above quotation. It was obvious from context who I was referring to though.

I mean, do you also blame the "first world countries" which would include you for the underdevelopment of "third world countries"
Ireland has historically been an oppressed nation. In only in the last couple of generations that we've improved.

If you read the posts I write on imperialism and neo-imperialism you would realise though that I would blame the developed world for both historically stunting the growth of the developing world and holding the developing world back currently.

I haven't seen anyone, including you, throwing away their benefits over these countries. Its the same thing.
I advocate political and economic policies that would benefit these countries and aid them in reaching our levels of advancement.

On a more practical level I also do intend on travelling to work in the developing world when I'm finished uni. If I could I would be travelling to help them now - I got selected to volunteer in Laos next summer (I can reproduce the e-mail if you're in doubt) - but I can't afford the travelling expenses. I personally don't see the point in impoverishing myself though so I can take the moral high-ground when it comes to debating this - that wouldn't achieve anything.

So by your logic you must therefore blame yourself.
I recognise my social privilege as being a white, straight, cisgendered male.

I hope you don't expect me to hate myself for that though?

Apparently our sorces investigated some different native Americans huh?
From your source:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

IM not a liberal feminist (the capitals are not me, that's my phone).
feminism (n): the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Feminism is about equalising men and woman.

Liberal Feminists believe this just requires changing laws.

Radical Feminists recognise radical social change is also required. I have included Socialist Feminist and Cultural Feminist stances too in my general position too though.

or apparently any minority they can get their hands on then reinforce and victim complex to them.
I agree that Feminists tend to support social justice in general.

But i cant argue, you're definitely a radical feminist. You a literally the scourge of equal rights. And the funny thing is if you got together with and MRA you would actually balance out and create equal rights.
Lol.

I would appreciate if you didn't derail this thread with AdHoms because you can't understand my position. If you're going to call me a "scourge" of equal rights then I would at least appreciate you refer back to an example of me opposing equal rights.

[lawolosyk]

Is it just me, or do women and african americans seem to have the tables turned when it comes to equality? Way back when, if you were a white male, you had everything compared to slavery and sexism. Nowadays though, we have a black history month, and a womans history month. What month is devoted to white males then may i ask? And on tv there is a commercial for "black people meet", an all black dating site. Can you imagine the commotion if there was a white people meet?
Now im not saying women and black people are free of discrimination, so dont get all "you racist, sexist piece of shit", but in certian cases, "equality" has gone further than it shouldve.
i have to admit my first instinct was to criticize you but i would have to agree...everything gets turned into racial debate....but on the other hand i don't agree with your stance on women because i am a huge feminist. so on that perspective i'm a little one sided. :) even the thing in Missouri (Ferguson) ....from the beginning all colored people (not all but you get the point) were standing up for the man shot and they weren't there. and neither was i but i'm not sitting here making false accusations about what happened that night.

[Karkat]

Thank you, all i could think of was red something. As i say, don't cry racist the second something that one random person calls controversial is given linelight:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/



And i don't think that thatcountrykid did try and pass off opinion as fact, he stated his, and your immediate counter was to call him and me naive. I take offence that someone calls me naive for my opinion without having the evidence to explain how i am naive. The point is, i KNOW that i cannot be called naive because at least some of mu opinion has a basis.

And yes, this is a debate forum, but as i said previously, between me and vlerchan would be an argument, with my stance as an egalitarian and his as a radical feminist. I am open to accept his opinion but as part of his opinion he cant accept mine, there's no point in it



How can you blame a majority (that's whites it sounded as though you though i was accusing you of something, i just meant you blame white people when there's a small amount of then to blame) for having a benefit. I mean, do you also blame the "first world countries" which would include you for the underdevelopment of "third world countries" (give me a better term for it, those phrases are really disrespectful). I haven't seen anyone, including you, throwing away their benefits over these countries. Its the same thing.

One place (race) is better off, you blame the countries better off (Ireland fits that category)
So by your logic you must therefore blame yourself and deal with your own privilege or you should lead a charge against the developments of "first world countries" till everyone is on a level playing field.

Apparently our sorces investigated some different native Americans huh? And don't tell me to deny it like that, i might just take you up on the offer then everyone will get bored.

IM not a liberal feminist (the capitals are not me, that's my phone).

Sorry to quote dictionarys (i know, shoot me now) but the whole term feminist is to fight for the rights of specifically women (or apparently any minority they can get their hands on then reinforce a victim complex to them) whereas egalitarianism is about fighting for everyone's rights.
But i cant argue, you're definitely a radical feminist. You a literally the scourge of equal rights. And the funny thing is if you got together with and MRA you would actually balance out and create equal rights.

Your source even says that the data is on shaky grounds. It cannot be proven to be accurate. The way redskins is used among Native peoples is entirely different, because they're not making themselves a mascot, for one, and it's like when black folks say "nigga", for another. Some take offense to it, some don't. As someone who doesn't belong to the group, you've really got no right to make the call of how others should view it.

Besides, if a football team had a white girl in Ugg boots holding a Starbucks cup for their mascot, white people would become OUTRAGED. And that isn't even a racial slur!


You can choose to ignore the privilege you possess, but it's extremely naïve- if not outright ignorant- to speak for someone in a position you've never experienced. But it's also naïve to speak for an entire group just because you share characteristics. That would be like me speaking for all seventeen year olds just because I was born between 17 and 18 years ago. If something doesn't affect you personally, cool. Denying that it exists with you as your own proof is anecdotal and ineffective in a debate.

Also remember that an opinion is only ever true for you. It doesn't make you right, and it doesn't have to be respected, especially if it's outrageous. Take it as you will.

[Babs]

Where's the month for white males? Literally every other month of the year. White males don't have a white male history month for the same reason why, in Mario Kart, you don't get the lightning bolts and blue shells if you're already in first place.
Usually when I mention anything about white privilege, I get lynched for being "racist against whites" (despite the fact that I'm white).Way I see it, if calling out social inequalities is someone's idea of oppression, then that's proof that they are, indeed, privileged.

[Karkat]

Where's the month for white males? Literally every other month of the year. White males don't have a white male history month for the same reason why, in Mario Kart, you don't get the lightning bolts and blue shells if you're already in first place.
Usually when I mention anything about white privilege, I get lynched for being "racist against whites" (despite the fact that I'm white).Way I see it, if calling out social inequalities is someone's idea of oppression, then that's proof that they are, indeed, privileged.

Exactly. Especially that last sentence.

[kanine]

I just wanted to say if we don't have a white history month because we live white history dies that mean other non-WASP countries have a white history month? I don't think they do. But anyways I don't see what the point in having months for everyone who is different is anyways. I mean, it's basically that month where you single people out based on their differences? That probably sounded really weird crap.

[Babs]

But anyways I don't see what the point in having months for everyone who is different is anyways. I mean, it's basically that month where you single people out based on their differences? That probably sounded really weird crap.

It's not necessarily "singling them out as different". It's a time to acknowledge and learn history that's been ignored.

[Lovelife090994]

Oh God you sound like a white supremacist out of the deep, deep, south who's saying why don't we have a white day? All over the world sans certain countries White people and history is the majority. Just to be around other African Americans (a term I hate for its meaning), and to learn ignored history (Native American) you have to distance and remove yourself. Without Black History month Black history and culture would be ignored. One thing I never got is that Europeans are White yet their views are so different than the views and treatments of Whites to non-Whites in America. In Europe color doesn't matter since people from all over since the time of Rome has been as one in a collective area, so no room for racism.

But to the debacle above me to whose names I shall not mention I will say this. Blaming the majority is not always right because you always have either an average or minority of that majority fighting for the true minority and ostracized. Two, you can call an opinion naïve but you never have the right to lower someone or insult their intelligence because of that ONE opinion because your views do not correlate to your intelligence. I agree that things do need to change, but blaming won't work. That's what they do in Congress and that's why nothing major gets done, so stop with the arguing and consult for ways to fix the issue because arguing only causes another issue that again won't be fixed. Also, feminism aside given the very name and dirty connotations it would much safer to identify as a humanist or masculinist or even a humanist and equalist. Despite the debates I hold to no side or labels because I hate them all with a passion.

Lastly, to those of you who are White you will never truly understand what it is like to be born Black. You will never know what it is like to walk into a store and have people stare at you like they expect you to steal. You will never be pulled over for driving while Black. You'll never be asked why you are smart because Blacks are thought not to be. And while all sympathy is good, sympathy is not understanding. It's empathy and heart towards a hurt which is good but it never let's you see what the other does see. Despite all that happens, racism is very alive as is cultural appropriation. Many things seen as inappropriate but natural to Blacks like our hair and larger figures are rebuked on us but praised on others. Be it Kim K and others and their butt, or many African starlets praised for their natural hair. I assure you if you had a picture of two people, both presentable but one is Black with natural hair, and the other is anything but Black with straight hair, the non-Black person would get the job. I also will not apologize for going into a rant since another alter-ego of mine is typing this out while I watch. That's all I had to say. Enjoy the debate. Disagree if you want. Just don't pull me into a void of hate. Bye and thank you for reading.

[Broken Toy]

I'd be open to your opinion if it was backed up with empirical evidence.

It's not though.

If I'm anything I'm open to people's opinions.


I expressly stated I don't.

[Majorities] are socialised to perpetuate the societal norms that result in their advantaged position within society. Unless someone is conscious of their privilege and still strives to perpetuate the societal norms that create it I don't see the justice in placing blame on them.

I edited out the typo in the above quotation. It was obvious from context who I was referring to though.


Ireland has historically been an oppressed nation. In only in the last couple of generations that we've improved.

If you read the posts I write on imperialism and neo-imperialism you would realise though that I would blame the developed world for both historically stunting the growth of the developing world and holding the developing world back currently.


I advocate political and economic policies that would benefit these countries and aid them in reaching our levels of advancement.

On a more practical level I also do intend on travelling to work in the developing world when I'm finished uni. If I could I would be travelling to help them now - I got selected to volunteer in Laos next summer (I can reproduce the e-mail if you're in doubt) - but I can't afford the travelling expenses. I personally don't see the point in impoverishing myself though so I can take the moral high-ground when it comes to debating this - that wouldn't achieve anything.


I recognise my social privilege as being a white, straight, cisgendered male.

I hope you don't expect me to hate myself for that though?


From your source:

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/


feminism (n): the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Feminism is about equalising men and woman.

Liberal Feminists believe this just requires changing laws.

Radical Feminists recognise radical social change is also required. I have included Socialist Feminist and Cultural Feminist stances too in my general position too though.


I agree that Feminists tend to support social justice in general.


Lol.

I would appreciate if you didn't derail this thread with AdHoms because you can't understand my position. If you're going to call me a "scourge" of equal rights then I would at least appreciate you refer back to an example of me opposing equal rights.


Simple. You're a feminist. That makes you a scourge of equal rights simply because of the position. What your stance says is that advocating women's rights can achieve equality. It cant.
Example:
In the eyes of the law a woman's word is worth more than a mans.
If a woman says that a man raped her, the police believe the woman and immediately treat the man as a rapist. This shows that in law a woman is valued more than a man as she is less likely to face jail but apart from that a woman's claims are always pursued. Ive heard vases of men being laughed at for saying s woman raped them.
That's sexist and feminists, by definition will not fight for it.

[Karkat]

Simple. You're a feminist. That makes you a scourge of equal rights simply because of the position. What your stance says is that advocating women's rights can achieve equality. It cant.
Example:
In the eyes of the law a woman's word is worth more than a mans.
If a woman says that a man raped her, the police believe the woman and immediately treat the man as a rapist. This shows that in law a woman is valued more than a man as she is less likely to face jail but apart from that a woman's claims are always pursued. Ive heard vases of men being laughed at for saying s woman raped them.
That's sexist and feminists, by definition will not fight for it.

Feminists work towards the goal of equal rights. This whole bullshit between "feminist" and "egalitarian" which is better is why I'm against both labels. You're not working towards equality anyways if you're busy being petty.

Most rape victims aren't taken seriously, not just men. Rape victims are shamed and ridiculed in general, and most of the time, rapists walk free or are unable to be found.

Also, most feminists believe in ending sexism- the ones who aren't are full of bullshit. It's utter bullshit to believe that men have it worse, but it's also utter bullshit to believe that they have minimal problems or none at all.

[Vlerchan]

Simple. You're a feminist.
In other words you have no evidence I support retracting human rights.

That makes you a scourge of equal rights simply because of the position.
I mentioned "scourge of equal rights" to a friend on another board last night.

He agreed that it would make a good custom title.

What your stance says is that advocating women's rights can achieve equality. It cant.
I agree. There needs to be radical social change alongside it.

If a woman says that a man raped her, the police believe the woman and immediately treat the man as a rapist.

[P. 1] The article argues that many rape complainants must still battle to gain credibility in the eyes of some police investigative officers, and that stereotypically based judgements continue to impact negatively on police perceptions and decision making. The overall aim of the article is to prompt critical, constructive evaluation of police culture and practice in order to enhance the quality of police responses to victims of sexual violence and abuse.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/4925HomeComputer/Rape%20myths/Police.pdf

What's more?

For anyone who has been raped or sexually assaulted, whether or not to report to the police can be a difficult decision. At present, it's estimated that only 15% of the 85,000 women who are raped and over 400,000 who are sexually assaulted in England and Wales every year report. One significant reason many women and girls tell us they don't go to the police is because of their fear of not being believed.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php

Ive heard vases of men being laughed at for saying s woman raped them.
I've argued against this in the past.

I also don't care that you believe I can't because I subscribe to a certain ideology.

---

I also presume you accept my arguments in regards to social privilege.

[Babs]

If a woman says that a man raped her, the police believe the woman and immediately treat the man as a rapist. This shows that in law a woman is valued more than a man as she is less likely to face jail but apart from that a woman's claims are always pursued. Ive heard vases of men being laughed at for saying s woman raped them.

Actually, only a small percentage of rapists serve jail time, male or female. Male rape victims are often ignored or their pain is delegitimized, but it's not as if women just go "oh he raped me" and the police are like "okay lol" and send him to jail without any sort of investigation.

[dakeep18]

yes definitely

[DeadEyes]

Unequality all over the place, gender, race, sexism and racism rules the world.

[RRay99]

Think alot's been said, my 2c is that there are universal human rights. Everyone deserves those rights. No one should be denied those based on race, gender, sexuality, or religion. A lot of people have been marginalized or treated very badly in the past because of those rights. To pretend there are no long-term effects and that certain groups shouldn't be given support is living in a bubble.