Fuck you bud, 10/10 bait
What on earth do you even mean
Holy strawman
Hee hee hee
Keep out… Baitin’
Master level
Hee hee ho ho ha ha
OIIA?
I hate the word “privilege” used in this context. Words have connotations, and “privilege” conjures up images of playing polo at the country club with the upper crust of one’s community, then going back to the office to work as executive vice president of the company your father founded. Yet, the people concerned about social justice seem unreasonably attached to their particular jargon, even if it gets in the way of communication. Over the past 15 years or so, I’ve seen a handful of people get it when it’s explained to them as, “imagine you grew up hardscrabble dirt poor, but also had to deal with racism.” But mostly, the online discussions devolve into a fight over the definition of the word privilege. C’mon, let’s just ditch the word, ferchrissakes! Keep the concept, call it something more relatable!
Same with “toxic masculinity.” Yes, I get it, the “toxic” adjective is a modifier to talk about a particular type of masculinity, but the people who hear it as “masculinity is toxic” have a point, too. People use adjectives as intensifiers. I guarantee that the people talking about “evil homosexuals” aren’t adding “evil” to distinguish from the good ones.
Whatever term you come up with, conservative think tanks will immediately poison. Trying to twist yourself in knots to find the perfect way to express the idea is just failing to understand that the issue is that those who benefit from these systems at the highest levels have every incentive to keep things as they are. They can and will use their captive audience to fuck with any explanation you try to give that’s contrary to the system as it exists today. The only concessions they will give will only be to get enough people to pack it in since “we won”. And those will only be temporary.
I personally don’t like the idea of the phrase toxic masculinity because I don’t believe that the masculine energy is toxic in and of itself. I feel like a more appropriate term would be pseudo masculinity. Because that implies that people are not naturally this way, but they are forcing themselves to act this way in pursuit of some perceived ideal of masculinity.
I mean, humans are frequently guilty of using terms that mean a very specific thing in a much broader sense as a shorthand for clearly communicating what we specifically mean in that instance.
For instance, I have heard people are use the phrase “toxic masculinity” to describe boyfriends that don’t want to do the dishes, when the actual correct term is “lazy piece of shit”, but for some reason, when communicating this information to other people, it is easier for them to ascribe an issue with the sex of the person than an issue with the sex of the person, implying that the only actual fix is to repair your emotional relationship with your own sex instead of accepting that everyone has a human responsibility to contribute to doing the chores around the house.
Once again, I reiterate that masculinity and masculine energy is not toxic, any more than femininity and feminine energy is toxic, and I also exhort anyone that took the time to read this much to do their best to effectively and accurately communicate using specific language rather than emotional shorthand.
Love the term “pseudo-masculinity.” It takes away from the gender slant of toxic masculinity, implies anyone can have it, and makes clear it’s not what masculinity should be.
Fact is that as white people in North America, we DO get privileged treatment from the banking system, law enforcement, shopkeepers, bus drivers, random people in the street…
And white people in North America have it their whole lives, and will continue to have it their whole lives for the most part.
Is it unpleasant to be reminded that you’ll spend your whole life playing with the White Assist mode, and that every single non white person knows that about you? Yeah.
That there are circles you won’t be let into by default because of actions taken by other people? Yeah.
White supremacist ideology is bad for everyone, including white people, but it’s bad for white people in an emotional health way, while it’s bad for non white people in a life and death way.
The question you have to ask yourself, though, is this: Do I want to scold white people for their privilege, or do I want to get them on my side to fix it? In my experience, rubbing their noses in it is going to set people’s minds against you. Yes, they’re wrong, yes, they’re bad people, but the real world means hard choices between the euphoric glow of self-righteousness, or actual political effectiveness.
The question you have to ask yourself, though, is this: Do I want to scold white people for their privilege, or do I want to get them on my side to fix it? In my experience, rubbing their noses in it is going to set people’s minds against you.
I think you are making the same mistake they do. You can’t very well get someone to help fix a problem if you don’t let them know the problem exists. Just discussing or explaining white privilege isn’t the same as scolding someone about it. The folks who take it that way are going to take it that way no matter what terms we use, because they don’t want to admit it exists.
I’m so white it looks like my veins got drawn on with a blue sharpie. I went to a segregated prep school.
The “you are playing a multi player game on easy mode and currently you are economically roflstomping the people who are playing on hard mode, and bragging about how well you are doing. Is that who you want to be?” argument was what got to me.
Granted, I used to be male-passing, well paid, healthy, decent looking, I got dealt a very good hand, so that presentation of it found me where I was.
fight over the definition of the word privilege. C’mon, let’s just ditch the word, ferchrissakes! Keep the concept, call it something more relatable!
I think it’s naive to believe whatever terminology you use as an alternative wouldn’t eventually end up with the same stigma.
The people who interpret it as “masculinity is toxic” aren’t doing it because they have a hearing disability, they interpret it that way as a means to justify their own beliefs.
The same goes for your example of “evil homosexuals”. Anyone who is blaming all homosexuals for something does not have to modify them with the term evil for you to know they are being a bigot.
I don’t think it’s people fighting for social justice who get unreasonably attached to words. I think that describes the people who feign an inability to utilize context or reason when they hear them.
Yeah there’s no magic word choices that make good communicating automatic or guaranteed.
Bad faith pretends otherwise, for cover.
But that does not imply that all word choices are equal.
Yeah, some are privileged.
Sure, as somebody pointed out above, any social justice term will be attacked and tarred by well-funded right-wing think tanks. But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that. This example actually bolsters my point: The people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic. (No, I don’t actually believe that, but lots of people seem to.)
But let’s not give 'em a head start by using words that consistently turn off our audience, eh? In my experience, “privilege” and “toxic masculinity” do just that.
Because the well funded rightwing think tanks have already tarred them…
people using “evil homosexuals” don’t need to add the “evil,” because they’re bigots who believe that homosexuality is evil. Likewise, the people who use “toxic masculinity” don’t need to add the “toxic,” because they’re bigots who believe that masculinity is toxic.
I use toxic masculinity and I don’t think masculinity is inherently toxic?
And I don’t think a significant amount of people think masculinity by itself is toxic by itself. Otherwise everyone would be force femming their husbands, or hating any trans men choosing to express themselves.
The only people who seem to be interpreting toxic masculinity as an implication of masculinity as a whole are people who seem to think all maledom is under siege.
If you’re going to misrepresent my words, there’s no point in continuing a discussion.
How did I misconstrue your statement?
It wasn’t a dog whistle
I disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic, but clarified that the issue is whether listeners interpret it that way (based on the pattern established by known bigots). And indeed, while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
disclaimed explicitly that I don’t believe that speakers who use the phrase “toxic masculinity” believe that masculinity per se is toxic
And did I accuse you of doing so?
while I was writing, somebody else left a comment that does indeed interpret it that way.
Yes, lemmy has a pretty established history of harboring a lot of misogynistic users which do not reflect the thoughts of everyday normal people.
I don’t think we should be moderating our own behavior to satisfy people acting in bad faith or to the temper of bigots.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
From someone who grew up conservative and now hates conservative values… Your attitude is part of the problem.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
It is the exact same phrasing that others someone. Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”. Both forms of othering is bad communication unless you want to other and alienate. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Nah. Many, many people who come from inside that peivilege are being naive. To think they’re trying to defend the privilege itself is exactly the problem coming from outside the blinders.
Eh, I would say there are some people who are naive enough to not realize their own privileges. However, that itself is only possible because there are whole media systems coaching the reflective defense of their privilege in the first place.
The “evil homosexuals” comment is trying to elucidate you to that reality for crying out loud, but noooo, you just want to make yourself feel better by pretending your choice of words cannot be perceived the same way…
Lol, I was just remarking on how the modification of words with negative descriptors doesn’t reallyatter when the ideas behind the concept were bigoted to begin with.
Your attitude is part of the problem.
Yes, it’s the actions of people of color who made us this way… I’ve heard that before.
Failure to communicate is a two way street, and you arguing the exact same phrasing is somehow magically not problematic from your side while being problematic from the other is exactly the issue OC’s talking about.
I don’t really see how I am…? My whole point was that if we stopped using terms that bigoted people dislike and made up new ones, the new words would just end up being disliked by bigoted people.
Stop being OK with creating in groups and out groups by such simple terms as “white” or “homosexual”.
First of all… I can’t “other” white people as a whole, I’m not powerful enough to innact systemic racial programs, nor would I want to. The term white privilege is used to describe the systemic advantages white people have enacted over hundreds of years in this country.
Secondly… Nothing I said can be interpreted as attempting to “other” homosexuals? The only time I refreced homosexuals was when I said someone willing to use a sentence that includes “evil homosexuals” wouldn’t be made better by removing the “evil” part. For a hyperbolic example if I said “the evil homosexuals did 9/11” wouldn’t be made better if I just said “the homosexuals did 9/11”.
. If you want to other someone simply living their life, especially over differences they didn’t even ask for, then you’re still part of the problem.
Something tells me you didn’t stray too far away from your conservative upbringing…
I might not have white privilege, but I am still privileged when compared to the rest of the world, and I have no qualms about recognizing that. Anyone living in a rich nation is privileged when compared to the vast majority of the world that suffers in poverty. I didn’t ask for that, but I still recognize it as a problem that we need to address.
Maybe you are feeling a little insecure, and maybe that’s a problem you should think about?
I always knew who really did 9/11
AFAIK there is a term to describe the phenomenon when talking about discrimation : Intersectionality. But I’ve only read this in German literature so it might not be used internationally.
It describes how discrimination feels is unique and everyone faces different forms of discrimation, but there is some overlap (intersection of circles) between these discriminative experiences. By arguing with Intersectionality your experience is unique to you while still using the umbrella term discrimation. This situation here seems similar to me but instead of the negative discrimination we are talking about the positive privilege. But to me it seems like the concept still applies.
Yes, the term intersectionality was invented here in the states. Conservatives have already poisoned the term and made it into “the oppression Olympics”, rather than what it actually is, a framing device to explain that life is different for a black man and a black woman or for a black woman with a disability.
Cause that’s the real problem here. US has a high-powered counter-propaganda movement called The Chicago Institute & Friends (Conservative Think Tanks). Any term you come up with to explain how our world is fucked up will be subsumed by conservative think tanks into the worst idea imaginable.
Open borders? You mean letting in criminals by the boatload, rather than a measured response to the harms of immigration quotas.
15 minute cities? You mean communist lockdowns, preventing the free movement of people and ideas. Instead of what it actually is, designing urban spaces to accommodate the people that live there instead of devoting every square foot to car dominance.
White privilege? You mean demonizing people for the color of their skin, exactly what MLK didn’t want to happen. Instead of what it actually is, a framing device to show white people that there is more going on in this country than just what directly impacts them.
The fact of the matter is that “the left” (big tent, from liberal to anarchist) doesn’t have a messaging problem, it’s that the opposition has a lot of funding and influence to drown out whatever point the left is attempting to make.
Sartre’s quote on anti-semites here
God damn, it’s this shit right here that I’ve been calling out to my leftists circles whenever the topic of some messaging semantics change comes up. It doesn’t matter what terminology we agree on, bad faith actors from far-right think tanks will churn out BS and blast it on Fox news 24/7 until we sit down again and come up with new terminology because this new one isn’t reaching people like we intended it to reach. It’s a tactic to keep us from actually discussing ways to fix the problems, by instead focusing on those semantics and labels we affix to them.
Intersectionality is in use in English as well, mostly by people with no power.
If you don’t want these discussions to continue, you should probably learn to scroll past a meme without engaging in said discussion and keeping it alive.
Shhhhhhhhhh I’m having fun
I also hate the term privilege because it implies those people have something they shouldn’t have, i.e. they need to be brought down, when really it’s that other people have a disadvantage. This makes the ones labeled privileged defensive because it seems like an attack instead of a call for help.
Everyone should be at least at the same level as the “privileged” ones.
Edit: it seems I might not have been clear as the discussion below seems to perfectly encapsulate why I personally dislike the term privilege because of how it frames things. The majority of privileged people aren’t getting a leg up, they just don’t have the things dragging them down that underprivileged people do. Maybe an analogy will help:
Imagine a grueling and difficult race everyone is forced to run. The actual distance is arbitrary and doesn’t matter, you just need to complete it. The starting line is a staggered mess with people starting forward and backwards from each other to varying degrees. Many of the people in the race rightly point out this is not fair and want the starting lines to at least be the same for everyone. Now, which do you think is more beneficial to having everyone agree/work to move the starting positions; saying the people in front need to move back, or that the people further back should be moved forward?
I think you’re running into a little cognitive dissonance. In this scenario, the privilege is what is causing the disadvantage in the first place. You cannot be privileged in a truly equal society, therefore you can’t elevate everyone to a privileged class, you can only equal the playing field.
It’s a zero sum game.
I was with you most of the way but you lost me here. Some of the biggest privileges for cis straight white males is that they don’t have to deal with racism, sexism, and bigotry over who they are and who they love. That’s not a zero sum game. We can all have that privilege. That privilege isn’t what causes bigotry.
There are some privileges that would be lost, like being preferentially hired by racists. But for the most part we’re fighting in large part for equal good treatment. It’s not a zero sum game.
cis straight white males is that they don’t have to deal with racism, sexism, and bigotry over who they are and who they love
How does that racism materially present itself? With racism it’s by decades of economic support and government programs aimed at creating wealth for a certain ethnicity over another. With sex it’s decades of reinforcing gender roles and denying educational opportunities for women. Rules about race mixing were created to deny a dilution of the ethnic collective of political power.
That’s not a zero sum game. We can all have that privilege. That privilege isn’t what causes bigotry.
I would argue that it shouldn’t be a privilege, but a universal right.
But for the most part we’re fighting in large part for equal good treatment. It’s not a zero sum game.
I think you might want to look up the definition of privilege. You can’t be privileged unless someone is being disadvantaged. If you want to get rid of privilege then what you’re saying is you want everyone to be treated the same.
I’ve tried to bring this up before, but I personally don’t believe everyone should be treated the same.
In an ideal world where we had an objective way to measure this, I would prefer that we lived in an absolute meritocracy.
Some people are a better fit for a particular purpose than other people due to racial advantage, gender advantage, physical advantage, age advantage, or any other number of advantages that they have been gifted by the miracle of life and talent, or that they have earned from dedication and struggle.
In my ideal world, if you remove all of the things that are not important to the task at hand, and only judge based on who is most fit for the task at hand, then the people who are the best fit would get the most appropriate reward for their capacity.
As a nonwhite male IT worker, my ability to lift heavy objects is secondary to my ability to fix a printer. If a female can fix printers better than I can, she’s more than welcome to have the job at the same pay they would have paid me for it.
Imo an absolute meritocracy would first require a society of absolute equity. Otherwise how would you know if someone is actually more inherently better at something or if they just had more opportunity?
I think meritocracies are a nice idea, but they’ve mostly been supported by societal elites throughout history because they know it’s easy to score when you’re born on third base.
A society of absolute equity is impossible. Some people will be taller, faster, smarter, more charismatic, dumber or any other adjective you wanna name. Trying to decrease that variance by limiting systemic advantages is one thing. But, it will never lead to truly equal opportunity and/or outcome for everyone. Thats a type of optimism that requires a high level of ignoring the objective reality of the world. Relationship based opportunity availability will also always be a thing. Limiting it via legislative action could curb it to a degree but never completely. Thats just not a realistic ideal. You could implement some Harrison Bergeron esq limiters but at that point I wouldn’t want to live in that world. My sole non trolling response so far.
Godeeem
Yes, and that’s the point with male privilege? It’s an advantage without any other reason than the holder being male.
Raising women to hold the same privilege is the same as removing it for men, if everyone has it it’s not a privilege.
I think this is why the equality in society moves forward too slowly, not necessarily because men don’t want women to have equal rights and opportunities, but as you said the privileged are defensive because they don’t want to lose their privileges.
Stop arguing semmantics and understand what they’re saying! This is about communication, not being technically correct.
FFS, your post is exactly portraying the problem.
You even use a much better word: equality. Yet argue in favor of using a less effective word… Truly sad.
Semantics are important and I do understand what they are saying. Did you read my comment?
it implies those people have something they shouldn’t have
This for example. Male privilege is something men shouldn’t have since it’s based entirely on gender. So the privilege teeds to be abolished for equality to happen.
And as I said, of course men gets defensive when its problematized and put in the spotlight, you may support equality but who wants to lose their advantages? 🤷
Ironically enough your comment also focused on the semantics instead of the issue at hand… :)
This is ALWAYS about being technically correct
I’m not married to those terms, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest better ones for what they mean. These concepts must be communicated somehow. Got any ideas?
Yes, I suggested that what I’ve seen be effective is suggesting that white people imagine their struggles, but with the added burden of aggressive policing, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and racism in general. There’s no need to drag the term “privilege” out of its academic context, because it has the baggage of many connotations in vernacular usage. That is, just don’t say the word privilege.
Other commenters have offered some good suggestions. Instead of “toxic masculinity,” I’m partial to The Man Box, which frames the issue as discussing the outside factors that trap men into negative behaviors, rather than implying that they themselves are bad or broken. Wherever the problem actually exists, men are much more receptive this framing.
Instead of ‘male privilege’, “equality” or better, “equity”.
For “toxic masculinity”, I like, “machismo”, or better, “toxic machismo”, since not all sorts of masculine pride are harmful.
Instead of pee, poo
Any suggestions? It’s pretty useless to write 2 paragraphs that complain how dumb something is while providing zero alternatives to the dumb thing. At that point youre just noise.
I would point out that I have already shared what I have seen work to get people to understand the issue: Acknowledge that they were not privileged, and to imagine their non-privileged life with the added burden of racism. As for an alternative to toxic masculinity, AlfalFaFail covered some good ones.
There’s always going to be issues with the terms because both any termd chosen will fail to capture both the internal and external perspectives. Toxicity, for example, only shows how a certain type of manhood effects people who come in contact with it. However, a young man searching to be an adult in the world may come across this way of being a man and doesn’t necessarily see it as a good fit. So it’s too “rigid”. I’m not sure we’d want to talk about one’s “rigid manhood” but the quality is notable. We could also use the term “The Man Box” to capture the difficulty of people who struggle to meet these impossible standards.
I also like the term hyper-masculity, but there are worthwhile questions there too.
It’s important that remember that no term will do a great job of capture the full range of issues facing society and men, but even a cursory investigation will show how different vantage points help show and counter balance different terms.
For white privledge, we have to remember that in this society the baseline or default is white, male, young, affluent, etc. These people don’t get that suspicious look or assumption that they aren’t capable or criminal or dishonest like the OP noted. We could say society has minimal friction for them.
So as to not just have some more noise, here are some of my dumb suggestions: white tailwind, white standard, white default, white baseline, presumed while white.
I disaggre. I feel like it’s valid to point out an issue to make everyone think about it and possible solutions to it.
You don’t need an alternate route to justify a “bridge out” sign.
Establishing that something is a crap use of energy and attention is perfectly fine as a standalone statement. It needs nothing else.
This comment is a breath of fresh air.
Tons of people use a few correct points about social justice as a way to make themselves publicly noble. It’s horrendous, and it sends the signal to everybody else:
“we’re like you, we don’t care about the underprivileged either, we just leverage their plight differently, for different personal gain”
There’s no greater goal to work towards with such a person. They’re looking to set themselves above you, nothing more. This is not the step with which most group projects begin.
deleted by creator
Shut up and let me cry with my privilege already
No
My posts usually get lots of upvotes and engagement. Figured I’d fuck with the average ratio today
Literally what shitposting is, by definition.
And you’ve done it once gain, Maestro. Well done.
Swear the followers of lemmyshitpost don’t know what a shitpost is. Like, at all. Ironically makes it the most freshest of places to do it.
Men
- higher loneliness
- seen as dangerous by default
- higher mental illness
- worse academic performance
- higher suicide rates
- higher rates of homelessness
- less likely to get child custody in a divorce
- less support infrastructure
- are more likely to be dismissed when asking for help
- work more dangerous jobs
- higher workplace accident rate
- higher probability to be victim of a violent crime
- more likely to suffer from addiction (gambling, porn, substances)
- lower life expectancy
- higher incarceration rate
- more likely to be poor
Women
- economic inequality
- unpaid labor and caregiving
- gender based violence
- greater healthcare discrepancies
- professional and political barriers
- education barriers
Do you see the discrepancies between the two list? Everything you listed is something that we men either do to ourselves, or is done to us by a political/economic entity that is dominated by other males. The same can’t be said for list for women.
Two things can be true at the same time. FFS, this oppression competition is beyond pathetic.
Nuance also exists…
Also it’s not really a competition when only one group is being oppressed.
Or are you claiming men are being oppressed by the system that was created and operated by men?
My whole point is that women are systemically being targeted by a system created by men, specifically because they are women. While men are being negatively affected by a system built by men because of reasons besides their sex.
I’m not claiming men do not experience hardship that is unique to their sex, it’s just not specifically being done to them because of their sex.
HEY! Two things can be true is my thing!
What is the source of these issues?
Maybe men should stop being so shitty to men, but more so they should definitely stop being so hostile and abusive to women.
Maybe it’s not all men and using such generic language is akin to saying, “maybe the gays should stop being so flamboiyant if they want acceptance”?
Nice dog whistle.
Where did I say “all men?” Is it not entirely possible that these are all issues caused explicitly by men while there is also a conscious awareness from other men who are aware of and trying to address the issue? Men are the issue, or more accurately the concept of obligate masculinity is, but guess what demographic is enforcing that mindset?
Hint: not women, and if you think it is then you don’t listen to women nor men.
Women police the patriarchy plenty.
My experience from square straight married life is that women want men in general to be gentle and kind and whatnot, but they want their own husband to be capable of violence.
At least that was my wife, there were aspects of toxic masculinity that she absolutely encouraged.
Like, one time I got on a busy train with her and another guy got scared of me and left his seat. She sat down and smiled and patted my hand and said “that’s respect right there baby”
And I totally understand the desire to have sex with a big strong not too bright dominant guy, trust me I get it.
It’s not just SOs, mothers often play a huge part in conditioning men for the patriarchy, calling them little soldiers, telling them not to cry, to fight back at the bully at school, etc.
So, because women also have the ability to subjectively be shitty people and internalize misogyny that means no men are to blame for the outlined issues?
Don’t date or marry shitty toxic people.
Thats not a dog whistle
I see you’re having a great time with this post.
I mean, I am, but, that wasn’t a dog whistle.
It was, though.
You’re wrong
That would imply it’s the gay community itself that is not accepting flamboyant gays…
The gay community is not uniformly homogeneous. There are plenty of gay men who aren’t big fans of flamboyant queer culture.
“Aren’t big fans” is not the same as being bigoted, or discriminating against…
Do think there are some Lincoln Republic gays out their thinking Tommy is going to hell, not because he’s queer, but because he sashays too hard?
Have you ever talked to gay men?
Yes? I’m even friends with several queer people…shocking as that may be.
I even know a few conservative leaning gay dudes, our gay district has a gaybar specifically for cowboys. Even they don’t hate or discriminate against flamboyant gay men. They might not seek their company or want anything to do with that particular scene, but they are still neighborly.
Shhhh they wanna use a big paint brush, it supports their argument
Yes, but I think the point was the white part of “white men.”
I was “lucky” enough to have my privilege put in plain english during a job interview. I’m white and this guy literally says “it so hard to find a clean cut white guy for this job, I don’t want some Dominican walking into a customers store with our logo on.” If I was not white I would not have gotten that job.
But yes, as you say, I’m stuck working in a factory right now with shitty air quality, I’ve been single for almost a decade, have severe anxiety and depression, and am fairly poor. Still doesn’t mean I don’t have privilege for simply being white. :/
Big fucking yikes, they just said that out loud?
I’m in kinda the same boat, early 30s white guy, shitty job (truck driver), single, and so depressed and anxious that I’m currently on short term disability because of it.
I feel like the big problem with the discourse around white privilege is that most people misunderstand what it actually means. It doesn’t mean that everything is handed to you purely because of skin colour, and it doesn’t mean that things can’t be difficult. It just means that we get an unspoken, and often unconscious advantage over our racialized peers in our white-dominated society.
I don’t see how nobody else sees a connection between the way men are viewed, and the way black people, who are viewed as more masculine in society than other races, are viewed. A significant portion of that list is a list of what black people go through, black men even moreso.
These are all great reasons for men to want to dismantle the patriarchy (the cause of them all)
You don’t dismantle the patriarchy by attacking men and blaming them for everything. The patriarchy is upheld by women as well. Women have privileges under the patriarchy, that feminists are not ready to let go off.
A post patriarchy has to be better for everybody and can only be reached by gaining the support of men.
The current trend is a growing political division between men and women with women moving to the left and men to the right. The currently employed strategy of putting men down makes this worse.
True. In what ways can we get more men to understand the patriarchy is their real enemy?
Force us to at gunpoint is the only reasonable answer
Can I just tell you how much I’m enjoying your thread and your participation it?
Hee hee hoo hoo ha ha
By not calling it patriarchy, that term is burned.
Okay. What would you call it?
Capitalism or “ruling class”
Having any society that allows for rulers to exist in any form will always result in having a form of patriarchy, among other arbitrary divisions, such as race, whatever “IQ” is, blue vs white collar, who people vote for, etc. not including “the powerful vs the masses”.
Divide and conquer is a strategy as old as society.
I’d call it The Machine, and then we could all rage against it
Oh shiiiiiiittttttt bro cracked the code
Joe
deleted by creator
Yes and you know what all us leftists say, “if you have any adversity it means you never had any privilege at all in the first place” very valid. Thank you for your contribution.
You sir can eat the fattest sloppiest bag of dicks your saggy cunt mouth has ever whored for.
What do you mean?
deleted by creator
He said, essentially, how could a Pakistani immigrant doing bicycle deliveries have more privilege than a white woman with a college education and stable office job. Teeeeeheeeeee
These are all true and factual, excellent job.
I guess class divisions and racism towards Eastern Europeans in my country are imaginary then.
Two things can be true at once.
Two things can be true at once.
So Eastern Europeans are privileged and discriminated against in Western Europe at the same time? Whoa!
Holy shit… Your meme game!
Few can compete. I’ve deleted more gold than most have seen.
I’ve never said or thought this.
Are you the only white man on this planet?
Congratulations friend
Just a little casual racism in the morning then?
Don’t forget the sexism too.
Hell yeah
Because racism and sexism connote a broad power dynamic of oppression, and since white men have most of the political and social power, critiques of them are not sexist or racist. I’d say OP is just a sexually & racially prejudicial strawman, i.e. a lemmy shitpost ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Love that shit
