Jeenyus At Werk: July 2013

The Knapsack Isn't Invisible, But Imaginary.

One of the most common "social justice" byproducts I see these days is the popularization and even glorification of the idea of a universal White/Male Privilege™ In fact, it's such a commonly promoted idea that it has even permeated the general culture. It seems any time anybody is discussing gender issues of any kind, either the entire phrase, or sometimes just the word "privilege" is flung at the person not being belligerent in favor of women. I would say "women and people of color" except that despite the fervent insistence about "equal rights for women and people of color, etc. etc." I don't see the popculture "social justice" narrative actually fighting for people of color (or any of the etc.) unless they're women who just happen to coincidentally be of color. Let's face it, "color" is a token demographic in the popculture "social justice" narrative, used to boost support and provide a convenient increase in "victimhood" for the cause, but ultimately ignored until it's time to trot them out and shame some "white male" into submission.

Of course, one could say, "well, white males as a demographic do tend to have things better than other demographics, don't they?" And my answer would be, yes - if you look at the statistics, whites and males do tend to be better off than other demographics in some ways. However, not only do the facts show the opposite of what this White/Male Privilege™ claim suggests in some cases, but even when the aggregate is truthfully represented in favor of whites or males, it is being applied not as a statistical concept, but as an absolute, even toward individuals.

Now, if somebody wants to argue statistics and such, they can go right ahead and argue with somebody else who's interested in doing so. I'm not much concerned with trying to quantify any demographic for petty reasons myself, since it will tell me nothing useful about any particular person within that demographic. Generally, I'm not going to bother addressing statistics other than to disprove ridiculous claims. The dog I do have in this fight is that people (of any type) deserve the dignity of basic personhood. "Social justice" advocates are simply trying to use generalizations, even sometimes blatantly false ones, to shame people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong and belittle people based on things which do not necessarily apply to them.

So let's examine this idea with some intellectual rigor, shall we?

I'm going to grab the checklists from an article I've often seen referenced as basically the definitive resource for explaining what this concept means and we'll take a real, honest look at some of the claims made, to determine whether they are valid "privileges" which can be applied universally, or are just claims made when trying to shame and silence a person or persons from certain demographics. I'm not going to bother with all of them, because, quite frankly, I'm just not that interested in wasting my time to that extent on debating things which somebody wrote to encourage the hatred of other people. If a sampling isn't enough to be convincing - if there's something in particular that I skip over and you really think is more valid and absolute than the rest and I should address specifically, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

"How am I going to determine if the claims made are just prejudice" you may ask? Well, if you'll take a look over to the right side of this blog, you'll see a list of "reference pages" and on that list is a link to one called "What Is Prejudice?" That's what I will reference when determining the value (or bigotry) of these claims.

http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/modern/WhitePrivilege-MalePrivilege.html

Since the White Privilege™ and Male Privilege™ lists aren't exactly the same, I'm going to combine some of the like items and expand the focus of others. Some things are basically repeats and others could theoretically apply to both race and gender, but aren't present on both lists.

I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race (or gender) most of the time.

http://www.curves.com/about-curves/
http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/

So, apparently, it would seem that if having spaces designated specifically for one's own demographic is in fact a White/Male Privilege™ it is not an exclusively "white" or "male" form of "privilege." Seeing as the complaints are about a particular demographic, when it seems other demographics which have these same types of "privilege" are not subjected to these same types of complaints, that suggests even if it is true, UT1 and UT2 from the prejudice reference list are being used against "whites" and "males."

However, there is evidence,

http://www.whitepeoplemeet.com/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/reverse-sexism-at-simon-fraser/

to suggest this can actually be a difficulty for average whites and/or males, to achieve in reality.

Therefore, I'm going to have to say it's a possible UPJ2,4, UGJ4 and UAS1,2,3 as well.

I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race. (or gender)

I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which they are the only member of their race. (or gender)

I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

If I declare there is a racial (or gender) issue at hand, or there isn't a racial (or gender) issue at hand, my race (or gender) will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color (or a woman) will have.

My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races. (or genders)

I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race. (or gender)

I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex (or race) on trial.

Now, I hope I don't have to actually point it out for anybody to pick up the irony, but the fact that this very White/Male Privilege™ accusation is so often and so casually used as a method to shame a person and discount their position, perspective, or value, negates itself in the case of exactly every single one of those claims.

UPJ4 and UGJ4

If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.

If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

Oh really?

I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)

For this one, I'll just refer to the Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered? post.

Mostly to women? UPJ4 and UGJ4
Special interest? You betcha.

I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv08.txt
Characteristics of victims of violent crimes measured by the NCVS in 2008 were similar to previous years. Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger experienced violent victimizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older.
Male victims knew the offenders in half of all aggravated and simple assaults against them. Female victims knew the offenders in approximately 70% of assaults against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv09.txt
Violence against males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger occurred at higher or somewhat higher rates than the rates of violence against females, whites, and persons age 25 or older in 2009.
Females knew their offenders in almost 70% of violent crimes committed against them; males knew their offenders in 45% of violent crimes committed against them.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/cv10.txt
Males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent victimization during 2010
Females knew their offenders in 64% of violent victimizations committed against them, and males knew their offenders in 40% of violent victimizations against them.
The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.

Is the real problem that the less commonly victimized race/gender is taught to be cautious, or that the more commonly victimized race/gender isn't? If it's the former, all you need to do is tell whites, women and people 25 or older that they are on the less statistically likely side of an average 1.5% per year violent crime victimization rate. Incidentally, if encouraging paranoia about violent crime is a "discrimination" against the demographic less likely to experience it, then it is likely blacks which have the "privilege" in this case. (or, UPJ4 and UGJ4)

Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337
US election: Women are the new majority

UPJ4 and UGJ4

I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.

Actually, in case you haven't heard, women are the majority of managers these days and women under 30 make more money than their male peers. If you don't believe me, ask Hanna Rosin. (the radical feminist)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

UPJ4 and UGJ4

The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.

The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

These are also known as the "most CEOs are white men" claim and are intended to suggest that being the same race or gender as somebody in power automatically grants a person some form of, or access to that power, or that the power in question automatically serves that person's interests. If you need an example of why such a thing is not necessarily the case, Google "Sarah Palin abortion" or "Marsha Blackburn equal pay" or "Jodie Laubenberg rape kit."

UPJ1,2,3 and UGJ1,2,3

Tell ya what... How about we address the "wage gap" as well while we're in the neighborhood?

My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female (or colored) applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

and

I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex (or race) - even though that might be true.

Now, those are from the same list, in positions #1 and #2. Is it just me, or do those actually seem to contradict each other? I mean, in #1 the suggestion is "you probably got that job, just because you're male/white" (UPJ2,3 and UGJ3) and #2 is suggesting "people won't think you probably got that job, just because you're male/white." (UPJ4 and UGJ4)

And that's without even considering that there are programs which by design, provide incentives for employers to hire the non-white and/or non-male applicant if there are two people of different demographics competing for the same job.

As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex.

http://comicsbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/he-man.jpg
http://inadawords.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/wolverine.jpg
http://www.metropolisplus.com/superman/SupermanJLBColorWeb.jpg
http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/AquamanSideburns.jpg

Almost infinite variety?
Non-stereotyped?
UPJ4 and UGJ4

Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.

"Ohhhhhhhh myyyyy goshhhh ~~-------------------~~ #Tatum #perfect"

"Yes please. EEK!"

"Hot damn... Woof"

"i would fuck them guyes brain out"

"woah baby i'd let channing tatum strip for me anytime and where"

"I saw this movie with my girls and gay guy friends and I must say we all needed a cold shower after this. Especially when the pony dance happened!"

(Those comments must all refer to the acting talent displayed, right?)

For Objectification's Sake:

If you actually managed to make it all the way here, I hope you're sick of reading by now, because I'm done writing for the moment. I will, however, leave you with the very last list item:

I have the privilege of being unaware of my (white) male privilege.

Which simply means, "disagreeing with me is all the proof I need."

The moral of this story? White/Male Privilege™ (or any other malicious generalization of people) is simple prejudice at best and dishonest, harmful, even blatant hate speech at worst. If you use such language in an attempt to shame and silence somebody, you are not fighting bigotry, you are perpetuating bigotry.

Looking forward to the hate mail...

There's a lot of people talking about it, but the term itself seems to be subject to "interpretation" any time an advocate for "social justice" wants to make an argument. I've noticed that advocates from pretty much any perspective are guilty of hypocritically twisting the definition for their own purposes, so I think it's time to nail this "prejudice" thing down once and for all. This is very important, because without a very clear description for what prejudice is and how it is applied, people can claim it is or isn't whatever they want to simply derail from whatever the real point is and instead, make it a long, nonsensical debate about rhetoric, definitions and application of terms.

So, here's the deal. I'm going to broadly and specifically delineate the meaning and application of the word "prejudice" in a way which I believe everybody can pretty much universally agree on. I'm pretty comfortable that this should be adequate for most things, while not so horribly convoluted as to be unusable, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to leave comments.

Prejudice is...

Unfair Personal Judgement (UPJ):

1. the assumptive judgement of a person based on the judgement of a different person or persons
2. the assumptive judgement of a person based on the unfair judgement of a group or demographic
3. the assumptive judgement of a person based on statistical data (or any fact which is not accurate for every member) of that person's group or demographic
4. the assumptive judgement of a person based on emotional preconception, instead of factual evidence
5. the assumptive judgement of a person based on personal, cultural, physical, or behavioral differences which are not directly relevant

Unfair Group Judgement (UGJ):

1. the assumptive judgement of a group or demographic based on the judgement of a person or persons who are not the entirety of the group or demographic
2. the assumptive judgement of a group based on the judgement of a different group or demographic
3. the assumptive judgement of a group or demographic based on statistical data (or any fact which is not accurate for every member) of that group or demographic
4. the assumptive judgement of a group or demographic based on emotional preconception, instead of factual evidence
5. the assumptive judgement of a group or demographic based on personal, cultural, physical, or behavioral differences which are not directly relevant

Unfair Personal Responsibility (UPR):

1. holding a person responsible for the actions of a different person or persons
2. holding a person responsible for the actions of a group (including a demographic) they do not have control over
3. holding a person responsible for statistical data (or any other fact) they do not have control over
4. holding a person responsible for something based on emotional preconception, instead of factual evidence of involvement
5. holding a person responsible for something based on personal, cultural, physical, or behavioral differences which are not directly relevant

Unfair Group Responsibility (UGR):

1. holding a group or demographic responsible for the actions of a person or persons who are not the entirety of the group or demographic
2. holding a group or demographic responsible for the actions of a different group or demographic
3. holding a group or demographic responsible for statistical data or for actions which are not performed by every member of that group or demographic
4. holding a group or demographic responsible for something based on emotional preconception, instead of factual evidence of involvement
5. holding a group or demographic responsible for something based on personal, cultural, physical, or behavioral differences which are not directly relevant

Unfair Treatment (UT):

1. behaving differently toward a person, group, or demographic based on UPJ, UGJ, UPR, UGR, or UAS
2. giving or allowing different opportunities, considerations or interactions to a person, group, or demographic based on UPJ, UGJ, UPR, UGR, or UAS

Unfair Application of Standards (UAS):

1. the assertion that any form of prejudice is not prejudice when applied to a specific person, group, or demographic
2. the assertion that prejudice is more or less acceptable depending on which person, group, or demographic it is being applied to
3. the assertion that any person, group, or demographic deserves to be subjected to prejudice, or that it may be beneficial to them
4. the assertion that different people, groups, or demographics should be held to or judged by different standards based on UPJ, UGJ, UPR, UGR, UT or UAS
5. the assertion that a person, group, or demographic should be subject to UT based on personal, cultural, physical, or behavioral differences which are not directly relevant

Again, this is not a debate about where anything applies to a specific group or within a specific argument, but whether this is prejudice. If you need specific hypothetical applications, imagine an argument applying any of these against the group you are defending. (male/female, white/black/asian/latin, MRM or Feminism, etc.)

Jeenyus At Werk

7/07/2013

How to dispute an argument in favor of male genital mutilation:

7/06/2013

White/Male Privilege™