Denouncing "White Male Privilege" Is The Fashionable Racism And Sexism Of Our Day
Smart piece by Brendan O'Neill at Spiked on the ugly agenda of those I call feminist grievance hunters:
Those young, opinionated new media feminists who get handsome advances to write books spluttering about 'white male privilege' are far more privileged than many of the white males they splutter about -- especially the ones who empty their bins or sweep their roads. It's almost Orwellian in its topsy-turviness -- the most well-connected, middle-class women denouncing the alleged privileges of some of the most derided people in society.Partly this is just bad science: feminists, leftists and others see that parliament and the boardroom still have a hefty number of white men in them and they extrapolate from this to argue that all white men must have lovely lives. Hence they always use the ridiculously sweeping terms 'white men' or 'male privilege', as if whiteness and maleness were inherently beneficial. As if loads of white men aren't dirt poor and awfully underprivileged. It's like seeing the Queen and thinking: 'Wow, white women in Britain have it good, don't they?'
... But there's something else going on too, something more pernicious: the way the politics of identity elbows aside anything to do with class. Unlike radicals of old, the new identitarians -- from feminists to shouty students -- do not see the world in terms of the haves and have nots, or the ruling class and the working class; in terms of work or wealth or clout. No, to them it's all about biology, race, gender: fixed traits, which they think define us as individuals and determine our destinies.
Such ugly, racial determinism is why they can use the blanket, dehumanising term 'white people' to refer to a vast group that contains all sorts of social classes and people: rich, poor, middling, left, right, good, bad, happy, sad, etc. The idea that all white men have a certain kind of life or outlook is as dumb, and foul, as saying all black men are criminals.
Identity politics doesn't totally smother class considerations, however; it helps to facilitate a new, PC version of class hatred. The bile spat by feminists and others at certain white men -- the uncouth, most derided ones -- is really old-fashioned loathing for the lower orders dolled up as a radical stand against 'male privilege'. When university students or media-based identity obsessives crow about drinking 'white male tears', they behave like modern-day Marie Antoinettes, laughing in the face of the less fortunate who will never experience the privileges enjoyed by these fashionable railers against privilege. 'White male privilege' is simply a myth.
via @SteveStuWill
There's a pissing contest to see who has the least privilege.
NicoleK at January 7, 2016 1:12 AM
And in true Orwellian speak those who have the least privilege have the most, NicoleK.
There is also the odd idea that oppression is an inheritable asset. The idea that grandma was harassed by people who look like you, therefor it is moral that I harass you.
Ben at January 7, 2016 4:11 AM
Ben has a great point. One of the key reforms of modern Westernism was to eliminate the inheritability of debt; we do not require children to pay debts accumulated by their parents. This is true economically but it generally also true morally. In fact, there is often a lot of sympathy for children of the moral bankrupt; we go out of our way to make sure they are not tarred with their parents' sins.
But here, for politically disfavored classes, we make an exception. So we have the following apocryphal conversation between an upper-middle-class feminist and a young man from Appalachia:
Feminist: "Your great-great-grandparents were slaveholders, therefore, you must pay for their sins."
Young man: "First of all, my great-great-grandparents grew up dirt poor in the hills of eastern Kentucky. It is unlikely that they had anything to do with slavery; it is likely that they themselves were sharecroppers. But aside from that, was as a society do not hold that children must pay the debts of their parents. So how is it that you can hold me responsible for something that you think my my great-great-grandparents did?"
Feminist: "Because white men! QED."
Cousin Dave at January 7, 2016 6:37 AM
This was emphasized to me when I was growing up (as a Jewish kid) -- that there is no concept of "original sin" in Judaism. That you are personally responsible for your behavior but have no responsibility for "the sins of our fathers."
It is racism to tell you that you are a bad person simply because of your skin color and sex -- neither of which you had anything to do with.
It's also exactly contrary to what Martin Luther King argued against.
Amy Alkon at January 7, 2016 6:52 AM
No, to them it's all about biology, race, gender: fixed traits
Oh, please. The Usual Suspects will tell you that gender is not a fixed trait. Some of them will even tell you that race isn't all that fixed (Shaun King, Rachel Dozal). It is what you deem yourself.
Your sexual orientation, of course, is fixed, but your gender. That's malleable.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2016 7:41 AM
What’s more, young women now earn more than young men: £1,111 a year more, to be precise. Between the ages of 22 and 29, women in general — covering all races — out-earn guys; by the time women hit their thirties, however, their pay falls below men’s.
Lookie there! A pay gap! it must be fixed!
I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2016 7:44 AM
One of the key reforms of modern Westernism was to eliminate the inheritability of debt; we do not require children to pay debts accumulated by their parents.
I'm gonna quibble with this one. We've shifted it from direct from parents to children, as was the case, to a more modern model of letting the government deficit spend on the parents, and let the children (and grand/great-grand children) pay back the debt at some point in the future.
It is more "fair" in that it is an equitable screwing, but a screwing none-the-less.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2016 7:50 AM
But that isn't a change IRA. Even way back when the government spent and the next generation had to pay back those long term debts.
Another interesting thing is lumping all 'white men' together. As far as I can tell there is a 'black' culture that is fairly unified across the US. But there isn't a unified 'white' culture. Scots, Italians, and Poles all have different value systems. Not to mention 'white hispanics'. There is no brotherhood other than national between these groups.
Ben at January 7, 2016 8:05 AM
"White male privilege" has been thrown in my face for many decades; and, usually by those who have had more and better opportunities than I've had.
I've been told to "step aside" for women or "people of color" regardless of job qualifications.
Often, I've asked where can I get some of this "white male privilege" only to be told that I automatically have it and have so much of it that I don't even see it!
charles at January 7, 2016 8:43 AM
Another interesting thing is lumping all 'white men' together. As far as I can tell there is a 'black' culture that is fairly unified across the US. But there isn't a unified 'white' culture.
Nor is there a "fairly unified" black culture. It's disparate.
Kevin at January 7, 2016 9:15 AM
"Nor is there a 'fairly unified' black culture. It's disparate."
There is an entitlement-class urban culture, which is mostly black (although more Hispanics are moving into it). You get a lot of exposure to it because the media wants it that way, so it appears that the bulk of the black population lives in it. Look at, say, blacks in the military, and you get a completely different picture. But black military guys don't have media cred, so that's a picture you seldom get to see.
Cousin Dave at January 7, 2016 10:00 AM
I should clarify that first sentence. It's only a portion of the entitlement class, a particular portion in the lower economic percentiles. As I've said before, you can't necessarily tell who is entitlement class just by looking at their economic circumstances. Some very wealthy people are entitlement class.
Cousin Dave at January 7, 2016 10:03 AM
This is nothing more than class resentment stirred up (class warfare) with a racial element thrown in.
The urban minority young man imagines that white people have it better and they're keeping him down by hoarding and not "sharing the wealth."
He sees movies in which white people live better than he ever will and wonders why he can't live that way.
No one teaches him about delayed gratification, investing your money, or the struggles it takes to get to the middle class.
Athletes are the only people he knows who escape the cycle of poverty. And many of them end up right back in it when their college scholarship is up and they don't make the pros.
His school teachers tell him about centuries of discrimination and even violence at the hands of white people. He never learns that the civil rights leaders of the past had faith in America, that the country could correct itself. He learns about Brown v. BOE, but never about the multitude of lawsuits filed before that because the NAACP leaders had faith that if they could get to the Supreme Court, they could overturn "separate but equal," that the white justices would see that it was not equal.
He knows no white people. Or he knows only angry, poor white people with whom he has had violent or confrontational encounters.
He knows no middle class or upper middle class people of his race/ethnicity. Cosby and Fresh Prince were unrealistic fantasies to him.
If he knows a studious young man of his own race/ethnicity, he bullies the young man into submission in his "survival of the strongest" world because that young man is acting like the oppressors he has been taught to resent.
No wonder he grows up angry and thinking all white people are racist suburbanites who are trying to cage him in the inner city.
Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2016 10:22 AM
There is an entitlement-class urban culture, which is mostly black (although more Hispanics are moving into it). You get a lot of exposure to it because the media wants it that way, so it appears that the bulk of the black population lives in it. Look at, say, blacks in the military, and you get a completely different picture. But black military guys don't have media cred, so that's a picture you seldom get to see.
We must travel in different circles; I don't need the media to show me black Americans, and I know a good number of black veterans and middle-class folks.
Those images are in the media, too, but perhaps not the media you consume.
Kevin at January 7, 2016 11:25 AM
Even way back when the government spent and the next generation had to pay back those long term debts.
Oh, here, how about a graph of the public debt since 1792?
I R A Darth Aggie at January 7, 2016 12:06 PM
What a coincidence. The History Channel in our area is showing one of the most egregious exemplars of male privilege ever recorded. It includes actual footage and interviews--the footage in HD--of D-Day and subsequent battles. Like burning guys trying to get out of burning tanks. Stuff like that.
Richard Aubrey at January 7, 2016 12:30 PM
Honestly I don't see what you are trying to show IRA. Other than Obama really looks up to FDR and has the debt load to prove it.
You can even look further back. There was a traditional cycle with monarchies in Europe. A wealthy kingdom would build up it's military and invade it's neighbors. After a generation of war the kingdom's finances would be shot. The old king would die and his son would take over. Since they had no money the son would be very frugal and repair the nation's finances. Then he dies and grandson takes over. Once again a rich kingdom he starts the cycle all over again.
In wealthy families in the US you often see a three generation cycle.
Generation one is poor. They don't like that. They figure out how to make and keep a lot of money.
Generation two inherits from their rich parents. They are now rich. Spending money is fun. They spend all the money.
Generation three is poor. They bitch and moan about how their parents are bastards who spent all the money.
Generation four starts the cycle all over again.
Ben at January 7, 2016 3:56 PM
Until they get married, and then they want him to make a lot of money and have unlimited parental leave.
KateC at January 7, 2016 6:55 PM
I get IRA's point. His point is that it's been done on the sly. Not many people understand the magnitude of what has happened. And yes, it's a violation of a fundamental principle of Westernism. Millennials have every right to be pissed. Some of them are, but I think there are more that don't yet appreciate the magnitude of the problem. (Or don't have the intellectual tools to comprehend it, because they weren't taught any math or economics in school.)
Cousin Dave at January 7, 2016 6:59 PM
Leave a comment