A moment of silence is in order for the white, hetero male...

...in America.

What's wrong with all of us? How could we be so insensitive, when the reality is an entire group on DU is merely mourning their loss. The thrashing about, the gnashing of teeth, the serial posting of threads with links to obscure sites aimed at supporting their argument...?

Think about it, they've lost so much and are losing more all the time.

No longer can they enter an office or workplace and KNOW they are king shit, by the virtue of the fact that everyone in the office looks exactly like them. The time when women were regulated to the "secretary pool" and darkies were merely "janitors" to clean up after them is over.

No more telling those jokes around the water cooler--about "those women drivers" or that "hot piece of ass" you conquered last night.
***Gasp*** some sensitive, pc woman may actually hear you and have you sued for sexual harassment.

The ethnic jokes you told to get warmed up for another stale business lunch, well...not quite appropriate when you now have black, latino, muslim, jewish, asian colleagues. Though you can always wait until THEY go to the bathroom to tell them, right?

Everywhere you went, the world was YOUR oyster. Movie theaters showed animated shorts featuring all those minorities at their stereotypical best--it was soooooo funny. But dammnit--they organized, stood up for themselves, said they have rights, too--because again ****GASP****They're JOYKILLERS! They have money now, and are consumers. They go to the movies, they aren't banned from theaters or relegated to certain sections (the horror), and can now speak up and say--this isn't cool and we won't support it.

No more humour created just for the white, male's benefit. What is the world coming to?

So alas, of COURSE you're going to throw a fit. Complain that life is just TOO pc...those minorities are TOO SENSITIVE.

I mean really, short of sick and twisted animation festivals and internet speciality sites, just where can the white, male go and have a laugh about those hilarious gays, those ridiculous darkies, those non-native english speakers ruining the pristine english speaking world with their thick accents, and incessant demand for rights, equal opportunities, visibility in the media that isn't demeaning...?

Surely if the advertisers of the world share in your collective sorrow and sneak in some ads aimed at reliving the glory days, we should all be more understanding, right? It's just to quell your heightening fears, and let you know that the advertisers of America understand. They really do. They support you and want to comfort you. Your collective loss as the majority, is slipping toward a life as a minority, and it is devastating, isn't it?

Advertisers want to make you feel better with chocolate covered, sugar induced highs to make you forget that the world is so cruel, filled with multilingual, multicultural people, women, gays, bisexuals, lesbians and transgendered people--all expecting a piece of YOUR prosperity pie and dammit--you can't make fun of ANY OF IT!

So please. Have a little compassion. Can't you just hear their hearts breaking...a little more every day?

:-)

Brilliant post. I'm recommending right now.

:hug:

...thank you for the nice compliment. I always appreciate your kind words. :hi:

And I smoke, so bash on brave sarcastic soul, bash on.

I was born in the skin I have, and I gravitate to females of my species, I've done nothing to you...but feel free to judge me, right?

:wtf:

Could you please point in the direction of the OP where it specifically mentions you alone? Or do you really have something to feel guilty about?

I hate assumptions made about me based on my race, gender, or sexuality as much as anyone else does.

Don't you?

I'm not starting anything. I actually asked a genuine question, because the way you responded you took it as a personal attack, and are still doing so.

that when fred phelps says "god hates fags" that it is a "personal" attack against you? I'm not starting anything. I actually asked a genuine question. :sarcasm:

I haven't made any stereotypes. It's a fact. Whites were long in power in America. Look around the board, there are several threads started by white, hetero males that agree with that.

Not at all sure why you are so hostile toward me. :)
But I do appreciate your taking the time to share.

The idea that being white male hetero automatically makes you part of some sort of exclusive rich country club...But it ignores the Bum, the janitor, the disabled man, etc who are all part of that demographic.

...the bum, the janitor and the disabled man are all in the minority. What part of that do you not understand?

a nation where like 1% of the people control 50% of the wealth (or something) This power elite shits on trailor court whites as eagerly as ghetto latinos or blacks or anybody else.

...the OP was making.

Have a good night.

I used to work in Public Radio in the 70's and early 80's.

I was part of a group of 4 young men who did a science-fiction comedy show that followed a "women's empowerment" show. That show consisted of 4 young women. At one point, they succeeded in getting a rule passed that we couldn't enter the studio until until they were off the air.

Why? Because we had "negative white male vibes" that would ruin something (I was never sure just what) for them. Nevermind that 2 of us were mixed race! We weren't allowed to even tell them that! They didn't even know our names. We had never met before.

This was intolerable. We had piles of sound effects to que up and scripts to mount and, yet, the management made us wait outside the door with our "white male vibes" every week.

During one of those "vibe-breaks" I had to listen to a woman folk-singer type do a song monologue about walking up to white men on the street and asking "how many little girl's panties are in your pockets?"

This was followed by a song that stated "Some day I'm gonna kill a man in self-defense". All to wild audience cheering.

Suddenly, I knew exactly what it was to be hated just for how I looked. Nevermind that with both African-Americans and Native Americans in my family, I knew some of that already. But I look white and had never been hated by strangers for that.

All 4 of us on our show were as Lefty as you could get - I remain so today - but with changes. Changes brought on by the unforgettable experience of being hated just for how I look.

(Some day I'll tell you all of being forced (along with all the other men who showed up) to leave the End Violence Against Women march because I was a "white" male who "brought violence with us").

Folks, if we are ever going to get back our democracy, we CANNOT divide up like this. We are ALL going to have to mix with people of all types. EVERYBODY is now down in the lower 99% that is now so utterly powerless.

We are ALL going to march with, shake hands with, talk to, eat with people from outside our presumptive lifestyle group. Different races. People speaking languages we don't understand. People who like polka music and wear big glasses from the 80's. Women who dance the Bharatanatyam. Men who hunt deer. Trekkies. Fork-lift drivers. Un-stylish people in Buicks. Geniuses. People recovering from cancer surgery. Doll collectors. Trans-sexuals. Civil war re-enactors. 20-somethings with pierced tongues. Veterans with missing limbs.

We are ALL together in our powerlessness.

We must now be together in reclaiming our democracy.

As art, it is a think piece.
If it made you think, I've done my job as an artist. :)

You are the artist extraordinaire. Its actually kind of sad how predictably people (like myself) respond to certain stimuli. Perhaps you should also consider it a science experiement! ;

You probably didn't mean to, but that made me laugh.
Yes, I guess some art is also a science experiment. ;)

I'm a white, hetero male. I don't have things handed to me on a silver platter. I respect the rights of women, animals, children, gays, etc. I have GREAT gay friends. I recycle all I can and drive as little as I can. I despise racism and classism and feel everyone possesses fundamental human rights. I also revel living in an integrated city and neighborhood. There are MANY white, hetero males just like me. Of course, the typical response is, "What, do you have something to feel guilty about?" No, I friggin' don't. I wish people would stop blaming others for being who they are.

The only people whom power-hungry people with an insatiable lust for power and wealth find acceptable are people like them - and only because they can be considered a potential means to even more power and wealth. It's not about being black, white, gay, straight, male or female. There have been slave owners in every race. This has been the case throughout human history. If you prefer, you can think of the 1700's and 1800's as the white male's turn. There are machiavellian types of all shapes and sizes, and they are the ones who feed off others. Granted, the gender of the most ruthless people is generally male, but there are also exceptions like Marge Schott, Imelda Marcos, Marie Antoinette and Barbara Bush.

Wanna know how how dumb assumptions like this are?

A moment of silence is in order for the black, gay female.

Now doesn't that sound stupid?

Some one would have to live with their head up their ass to think all white men are "the man" The op would be offensive if not so full of irony that it is laughable. Crap like this leads people to think progressives are wacky man hating hippies that live in a fairy tale.

:hi: and goodnight.

I think some other people around here have been on the receiving end of snotty, patronizing, condescending replies. About issues that are of concern to them. Issues that they've been genuinely outraged over.

But never mind!

terry, realizing he should always "lighten up" about things on DU.

Good night, Drum. Sleep tight!

:hi:

:shrug:

It's stupid. Maybe the op is just trying to provoke people but it really just shows an extremely immature worldview that won't win many supporters for progressive causes.

Merely those who resent the need to accommodate the wishes and sensitivities of other groups, and who have some power to resist this.

There are ruthless intolerant powerful people who sneer at 'minorities' in any group. In the UK, the glorification of harshness and insensitivity, of the right for the 'successful' to trample on the 'unsuccessful', was led by a woman - Maggie Thatcher. But in general, the people with this attitude tend to be white, hetero, reasonably prosperous, able-bodied males. Which doesn't mean that *all* white, hetero, reasonably prosperous, able-bodied males share this attitude.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

:applause:

:hug:

:hi::hug:

...you too! ;)

This white man sure has never seen it.

The ones that can read what you are saying have passed the thread by, or have commented on the fact that you "hit the nail on the head." They realize they are not the "targets" of your post. Like a well-laid chum-line, you have hooked those who wish to play the victim, while actually creating victims.

I would have played along tonight, but it is the start of Mardi Gras weekend, and we have to be bad, as it is our first one! :evilgrin:

Oh, do check your PM, because I have to show you where I have been declared a racist. I'll give you more info, but I figure you'd get a laugh from it.

BTW...tell "dh" he has to wear his Xmas gift on Tuesday! :)

How dare I hold such a victim mentality and blame everyone else for my problems. Yes I now realize who the true victims are in this world.

Thanks so much for this kick in the ass, wake up call. :)

...right? ;)

We are all adults after all. ;)

sounds dumb eh, stereotyping all black people the same way? Guess what: Sounds just as dumb applied to whites.

:shock:...just wow.

of how stereotyping is dumb. The white guy who is the rich king of the office, the italian mobster, the black rapper dancer, the asian kung foo master, etc.

Because white people have the power and have a history of, you know, enslaving and killing black people.

And yes, I'm white. Female and lower class, but white.

The discussion of prejudice is complicated and filled with landmines. I think it may be easier to navigate if you keep it in mind that the groups with the power and the history of discriminating against other groups don't have the right to define prejudice.

Gah, I can't find the words to say what I mean.

We all know that prejudice and discrimination and hatred of the Other exists. And we all know which group has the most power and can do the most harm with their hatred.

So when a member of that group refuses to listen to the concerns of members of the oppressed groups, it tends to get interpreted as "Shut up and sit down and just deal with being a second class citizen." And yes, one is led to think that perhaps it might be because the poster is happy with his position as top of the social food chain and doesn't want to lose it.

Personally, if I'd written the OP, I might have included a line about how it didn't apply absolutely to every single white heterosexual man. But I think that's sort of a given. And true, you can turn that around and say, "Well then, if I say that poor people are lazy slobs who make bad choices, it should be a given that it doesn't apply to every single poor person."

But I believe it's different, and that it's the power that makes the difference. When everyone is equal and our nation's leadership is no longer mostly rich white heterosexual men, then you might have a case for saying you're a victim of racism against whites or sexism against men or sexual orientation discrimination against heteros or socioeconomic discrimination against rich people. But for now, you're going to have to put up with people who don't have equal rights and opportunities being angry and being fed up and struggling for those equal rights and opportunities. I am sorry if that threatens you.

I think you expressed yourself very well and found just the right words to express what you meant. What a thoughtful reply.

Seriously. :) Thank you for taking the time to share here! :hi:

Racism, sexism, etc. Their very existence. If there gets to be a big thing against "white hetero-sexual men" I am threatened by it not because I am part of that group, but because its about fomenting conflict on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation. You cannot simultaneously fight prejudice on the basis of race gender and orientation while simultaneneously attacking people on the basis their race, gender and sexual orientation. It makes no sense.

The OP, if read just on the surface, pretty clearly talks about how white heterosexual males get everything they want and get to suppress everyone else.

I am a white heterosexual male. I don't think that's true of me at all. Why shouldn't I be offended? I've been told here that the post isn't directed at me, yet it generalizes all sorts of bad things about the group which I am most identified with. So am I wrong for thinking that I am supposed to be included in the bad guy group by the OP?

Frankly, I don't think that the OP is talking about me at all. I think, perhaps vainly, that the OP might actually like me if she met me. I also expect that I would like her too. We have a lot of the same beliefs in common, after all, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So, why should I be offended then?

The problem with identifying a group of people, any group of people, is that there is always variation within the group. Groups of people simply cannot be defined in absolutes. There are always people that act differently, think differently live differently than the other group members. Group definitions are always vague. That is the exact reason why ethnic jokes aren't funny - if they were true of all the people in the group then the group simply couldn't be offended.

Let me explore this from another angle. In the 80's I went to college in Saskatchewan. One of the things I found infuriating at the time is all the Canadians who classified me as an American idiot just because I was an American. They automatically assumed that I was a Reagan backing, conservative redneck because that's how they saw all Americans. I was shut down by them before I even got to start. Had they started to talk to me, they would have found out that we saw things in a much more similar way that they ever would have believed. They didn't in many cases, and it's their loss.

And so it goes with this post. I don't believe that it was directed at me. But - the words certainly include me, whether it was directed at me or not. Arguments saying I shouldn't be offended are the same thing as saying 'just sit down and shut up'. And, because the words do include me, intentionally or not, the same kind of shutdown is happening. I am guilty whether or not I actually do or act like any of the things listed in the OP. I've always tried to treat everyone with the same respect that I would expect from them, to the best of my ability. Yet, I am included with a group that expects privilege over everyone else. I try to work towards social equality, but I am included in a group which is intolerant.

I am very sorry that there have been many, very many, white males who have acted to make themselves an Old Boys Club. But I don't by myself have the power to stop them any more than anyone else does. I am not responsible for their actions. They are. It will take all of us to change things, white males included.

on edit, some text: serious flamebait

some substantial commentary to this thread.

If you disagree or don't think it's a point worth discussing, why don't you elaborate a bit and make your case.

I'm a white, hetero male and unashamed of it. I think people who believe it is a zero-sum game, meaning that for every group that makes a gain, another group has to suffer a loss, are misguided. And the way in which a topic is approached can be conducive to a rational discussion, or it can lead to lots of shouting with the actual issues hardly being discussed. I think this OP falls into the latter category.

Why don't you take it up with the mods?

If they feel I'm in violation of the rules, I'm sure they'll shut this thread down. Given the latitude that's been allowed for other threads expressing a variety of contrasting opinions in the last week, perhaps they'll extend my thread the same latitude.

'I think people who believe it is a zero-sum game, meaning that for every group that makes a gain, another group has to suffer a loss, are misguided.'

I fully agree with this. However (as a white female), I don't think that the OP was in fact ridiculing all white males. I think the intention was to ridicule people who complain about having to accommodate the wishes of those who are not white hetero (able-bodied, native-born, reasonably prosperous, Christian, etc.) males. In other words, the sort of people who cry "PC run mad!" every time someone from a less-powerful group criticizes their insensitivity.

the entire post is stupid and shows a very immature worldview. Should the party take such a position in the next election. maybe that can be the theme to a Clinton Obama ticket, "lets get whitey!!!". I am sure that will go over great and foster all sorts of feelings of good will between the people of our country.

Couldn't think of anything better to say at the time?

On edit: typo

:shrug:

I find responses like yours to be insulting and childish.

What a cheap rhetorical trick -- not too far removed from "have you stopped beating your wife?"

please consider the possibility that some people find the original post offensive because it is just the sort of broad paintbrush the OP rails against with his/her subtle philippic.

"Supremacy Crimes." Very thought-provoking and uncomfortable:

...<snip>

I don't know about you, but I've been talking back to the television set, waiting for someone to tell us the obvious: it's not "youth," "our children," or "our teens." It's our sons--and "our" can usually be read as "white," "middle class," and "heterosexual."

<snip>

This is not about blame. This is about causation. If anything, ending the massive cultural cover-up of supremacy crimes should make heroes out of boys and men who reject violence, especially the notion of superiority, altogether. Even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it.

<snip>

I think we begin to see that our national self-examination is ignoring something fundamental, precisely because it's like the air we breathe: the white male factor, the middle-class and heterosexual one, and the promise of superiority it carries. Yet this denial is self-defeating--to say the least. We will never reduce the number of violent Americans, from bullies to killers, without challenging the assumptions on which masculinity is based: that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge. There are plenty of studies to support this view. As Dr. James Gilligan concluded in Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, "If humanity is to evolve beyond the propensity toward violence...then it can only do so by recognizing the extent to which the patriarchal code of honor and shame generates and obligates male violence."

I think the way out can be found through a deeper reversal: just as we as society have begun to raise our daughters more like sons--more like whole people--we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters--that is, to value empathy as well as hierarchy; to measure success by other people's welfare as well as their own.

But first, we have to admit and name the truth about supremacy crimes.

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0106/010618.htm

I can't believe you would compare something I wrote to one of my sheroes.
I'm beyond flattered. :blush:
:hug:

We need to understand that he feels like he's losing so much, and it's all our fault. :)

...but maybe I should just sign off for the night. I am evidently too tired or dense to see the brilliance of the OP or appreciate the sentiments in this thread.

G'night.

:hi: Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'm a white, hetero male, and guess what?

I don't engage in the behaviors you've outlined here.

That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with, but your point is well taken, so I'm recommending and kicking your thread. But it's fair to ask that you recognize that not every straight whitey fits the narrow parameters you've set.

point taken, and I do appreciate your comments and your recommendation. :hi:
Btw, you should probably know that the big Irish guy sitting on the couch next
to me approved my message. ;)

Sounds like my kinda guy. :)

for a straight, white guy! ;) I dig him!

I want to just say that I very much appreciate the OP, AND don't believe that "every straight whitey fits the narrow parameters," and I don't think she does either. It's more of an ideological concept, in addition to something that actually exists that can be found primarily AMONG heterosexual white males--definitely not something inherent to heterosexual male whiteness. Just my humble two cents.

;) Thank you--I appreciate your comments!

Such a post challenges one to resist knee-jerking defensiveness and imagine what it might really mean, both rhetorically and practically.

And as one of those guys in question, I certainly concede that there are a bunch of males who fit her description.

For what it's worth, I think that's changing.

My wonderful partner of over 25 years would agree, we've raised our daughter and son together with the notion that they would not incorporate the prejudices of the previous generation. I think we've done just fine. :)

Sometimes in threads like these things get twisted and misunderstood, and that's understandable. I just wanted the record to show that there are men who clearly see the double standards that still are pervasive after all this time.

Personally, I think the world would be much better off if more of our leaders were women, and I mean that with sincerity. But, like women, I get turned off by gender-based stereotypes. That should apply to all of us.

:hi:

I do hope things are changing, and it's so great that you and your partner are part of that. I do see this occuring among colleagues of mine as well, exceptionally progressive and fresh thinkers who are raising children with such values.

Seems you have that dream in common.

Peace and love to you and to all the world. No exceptions.

:hi::hug: Hope to see you around the boards!

pried from his cold, dead fingers.


rec
dp

:hi:
And I appreciate your comments.
I've always thought that is what hard core republican regimes are about--fear.

when will it ever end?

It seems sometimes that I was born too late. A little while ago in history, and my status as a straight white guy would have gotten me so much power. Now? I can hardly expect anything but freedom from direct, violent oppression. What kind of a victorious lot in life is that?



Is the sarcasm smiley necessary for this?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Imagine my relief. Those damn honky breeders.
... oops, uh I mean just the males of course.

:sarcasm:

Bias is bias. Stereotyping is stereotyping. Count me out.

...jumping in on threads where they stereotype queers, huh?

I have a pretty good memory.

I guess I need to read the white devil handbook a little better. I appreciate the way you chose to reciprocate my support with your idiotic childish worldview. I am really glad most gay people are far more intelligent and grown up than the example you have shown on this thread.

:shrug:

;)...perhaps you're right.

...is infallible. ;)

Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot doesn't it? Maybe a little less stereotyping all around would do us all good.

BTW- the f#@king snickers ad was making fun of dumb white guys who were insecure about their sexuality. At least that's what I saw.

time supporting the rights of minorities that just want to abuse mine. To think, you reached out to people like me to just to alienate me even though support your freedom to live as you chose. Over a dumb TV ad too, imagine. Fucking genius. Bravo!!!!! Maybe you can raise some money and go national with this idea, right before the next election too!!!!

I have to stop with this thread, the level of stupid here is starting to wear me out.

say about gay people, or blacks. It would be extremely easy to use the same defense of "well I guess it must be true because you took offense to it". Do you realize how idiotic your post and this thread in general is? Do gay's/blacks want to make enemies of the white men that do support equality among the races and sexes?

I thought on DU we were working toward that goal but if the race war / war on sexual orientation is getting ready to start thanks for the warning. I need to get a little tighter with my own kind it seems.

Remember, we all need to tell others what they are and are NOT allowed to be upset about, and to define WHY it is so.

I recall how well THAT went over after the Superbowl and the Snicker's commercial.

So, heterosexual men are NOT allowed to be offended by it. It must have hit a nerve.

Did I get that right?

:banghead:

:puke: :puke:

I'd forgotten about those. Thanks for the reminder. ;)

How about Snickers?

Bank tellers fell under the female section, loan officers fell under the male section. Grocery cashiers fell under the female, grocery department heads fell under the male.

:hi: Good to see you, and thank you for commenting!

I was reading about Disneyland under Walt's regime (when he was still alive). Get this: only pretty, young, thin, girls worked as park tour guides. Females weren't allowed to work as outdoor ride operators (i.e. Jungle Cruise, Tom Sawyer's Island rafts). The unattractive and the overweight were hired for food service. At one time, the only blacks employed in Walt's park worked at Aunt Jemima's pancake house. :eyes:

It blew my mind to read that. But then I understood something else.

During the time that the Lion King parade was in the park, a family friend went to the park to see it countless times. One day someone asked her why. Her response,"...I've never seen so many black people in a Disneyland parade or working in the park. I'm enjoying it!" What does that say about the time when she was going to the park prior to that parade? ;)

http://www.bullz-eye.com/gallery/swimsuits.htm

Seriously though... My family loved jokes at the dinner table. I don't think any groups were spared but they were jokes and not meant to sway our opinion on a group. (Ie. 2 Irishmen die and are met at the pearly gates...) but I do agree, you don't want to be the only woman in an office full of men cracking sex jokes or with posters of women in swimsuits...err like my link above... :-)

I have to admit, I'm getting offended by all these topics in which people are getting offended. Sorry if that offends anyone.


Dapper

we always get the raw deal- ours was the last generation to grow up/be educated pre-computer "revolution", we came of age in age of AIDS in between the age of free love and the age of 'fuck buddies...we wore polyester leisure suits, for christ's sake...so yeah, it would figure that straight white males would go down for the count when it came our generations turn to be in power.

At the top end of the spectrum there are two colors: GREEN and everything else.

Since less than 1% of the population controls 90% of the action, that puts a lot of us white, heterosexual males in the same boat as everyone else.

Nobody is asking for compassion for the "late, great white man," but as one of the lower middle class all my life, scrabbling like hell to make enough to keep my family in one piece, failing miserably (AND this week: joining the ranks of the unemployed), I can tell you that not only was the world NEVER my oyster, but I have yet to have any fellow friends; white, black, other, male, female, any gendered who has been sucking down the world like a shellfish.

There are those people you describe, but they are in the vast minority of the wealthy; either narrow your focus or admit to prejudice: The rich people shit on all of us, and they could care less about our color or plumbing.

I appreciate your sharing your view, Tyler D.
Everyone seems to have a different impression of the meaning of this.
So it's really interesting reading the various impressions. :)

I guess we learned that it wasn't really offensive just becasue some took offense to it? Or... wait ... was it the other way around? I'm confused. (I guess that's because I'm just a dumb blond. It takes me a while.)

in terms of income the top 5% get 22.4% of the income, the top 20% gets 50.1, the top 40% 73.1 (leaving a mere 26.9 for the bottom 60%). In terms of wealth the top 1% has 39% of the wealth and the top 20% has 84% of the wealth.

That is just for the United States and it does not take into account our globally dominant position. Where 33% of the world lives on less than $2 a day. That probably puts even me over the median in world income and certainly in world wealth.

...thanks for the stats. Very interesting information. :)

If he/she is still awake they will likely say as much.

The topic of the post identifies the noun (white hetero males) to which the pronoun (you) is directed pretty unambiguously.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of them.
If you are offended, that's your choice.

Choice and intent are two different things.

Respectfully, I think they are violative of the rules, and once it has been brought to your attention that they caused offense among the group at whom they were directed, I believe it is incumbent upon you to apologize.

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

In my understanding, "male" is a gender and "hetero" is a sexual orientation.

Intent to offend (although it seems apparent) isn't a prerequisite.

edited for html

Are you a mod?

"get over it."

is way more exciting to the victim mentality that spawned such a ridiculous and sad thread. "I saw a commercial I did not like so now I want to get back at whitey". Never mind the white devil they attack are actually the least likely white guys to fit the stereotype they promote.

I feel sorry for people so lost they really believe sit like this. This is not the attitude or worldview of a fighter, f someone who is capable of changing things. This is the view point of the weak and scared.

:headbang: :yourock: :headbang:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

(I've copied & saved your OP... just in case it gets disappeared ;) )

:blush: thank you, Sapphire Blue!
I Love you, too! :loveya::hug::pals:

Divide and rule. The white working class have always been as exploited, and in some cases as discriminated against (cf Irish immigrants in the mid-1800's, Catholics pretty much everywhere until fairly recently, etc), as any minority; "white men" are no more a monolithic entity than "Americans", or "gays", or "blacks" are, and it's actually rather offensive, to say nothing of ignorant, to act as though they are.

No human being deserves to be regarded as a commodity - divided according to some perverted perception of 'type.' There is never a justification for doing so. Ever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But this whole thread pretty much illustrates why the liberal movement will not marshal its creative energies to solve the problems of tomorrow, which are pretty much hurtling down upon us today, by the way. Too busy stirring useless crap. Too desperate to feel good about themselves by judging others. In many ways, remarkably similar in form if not in content to conservative types.

Part of the whole PC problem. oh here's an example ... somewhere in this thread it is said white men enslaved black men and sure that is true. What is left out is that black people enslaved black people of other tribes to sell to whoever. Another thing that is left out is that lots of white men always regarded this as abomination and fought against it. A little examination of the history of the "golden triangle" exposes certain ugly truths about several races and religions. But it is easier to sit in high judgment over people than learn the lessons of history and imagine one race blameless and the other damned. In reality, neither guilt nor innocence can be assigned on the basis of race, and to suggest otherwise is itself racist.

This is really uncreative, useless, racist, counter productive stuff. But do keep on if it makes you feel better.

Trav

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

didn't want to waste energy actually addressing this bigot. And all the clamoring dimwits who chimed in as well. I've better things to do.

The fact that you've taken the time to compose another response would seem to contradict what you said.

then why even bother? That's a very lazy way to reply. And the OP is not necessarily bigoted, if one has the appropriate context and ability to understand it as a rhetorical exercise with practical implications. See above posts for examples of posters who have been willing and able to do so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

W/O a personal context that fits you into the world the OP posted about - why be offended?

I mean, we think Dick Cheney is a complete asshole, right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

since your post was deleted.

And honestly, after your hateful posts, I'm no longer inclined to seriously consider your justification for why you don't feel obligated to consider others' positions, or why you might not be "interested" in such a discussion. Your "go fuck yourself" posts made it clear who exactly has a problem discussing clearly and intelligently. I do invite you to read above posts (from white hetero males, no less) who understand this post from a different perspective and undrestand it for what it is. I doubt that you will, but hope that you do.

:spray: :patriot:

that others are offended by them?



The post will only offend those who see themselves in it.

Brilliant.

Apparently, it's only asshole white hetero males who might object to being called an asshole.

The rest of white hetero males should just know that the OP meant the other kind of white hetero males - the kind who might speak up.

News flash: white hetero males have a personal context which fits them into a worldview specifically, and without qualification, written about white hetero males.

..........................


Most of us blow off negative criticism and think about constructive criticism.

Generally told by blondes.

b) another reason I rarely go to the lounge.

I'm answering your question.


Who cares about the Race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality/party affiliation of the OP.




It's just a post - replies are just replies.

You brought up the concept that blonde jokes were okay, if told by a blonde. This "blonde joke" was not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Take a deep breath and think. Think about why you are recieving this reaction.


I have a multitude of failings - I admit to as many as I recognize.

I am recieving this reaction because, based on my group identity, it is considered just.

It is apparent that the individuals who have a biggest problem with being told to "get over it" have the greatest capacity to deliver insults which require getting over.

If I wrote an outrageously biased and insulting charicature of all individuals in a gender/sex orientation group and further compounded my bias by telling all those who object that they're only "whining" because "the shoe fits" or "it struck a nerve", I would not only have my posts deleted, I would have been tombstoned with plenty of justification.

I have thought about why I am recieving this reaction at great length. None of my conclusions have yet given me greater empathy toward the injustices that others face.

Ironically, this is the reason for the rules. If we are to join together to fight a common fight, we can't allow this kind of degrading bias to become a factional war. If you insult me based on my race, gender and sex orientation, especially simultaneously, I feel justified in returning the favor.

The 'it struck a nerve' line is nothing more than a passive-aggressive way of saying that the charicature is actually intended to go after everyone in a group rather than just a few, and those people in that group don't deserve the right to protest. It's no more right, and every bit as bigoted, to say that here as it would be to say it after joking about black people.

You can't see me but I am standing on my chair----->

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE? The very question has caused strikeout lines in all posts! ELAD!!!! HILFE!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

in your's and others coy responses to people who found it insulting. You used the worst possible stereotypes, generalized as much as possible and were about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Then you act shocked when some poor, honest, hardworking schmo comes in and is insulted? It strikes me as a little dishonest.

edit for speeling

All I can say that wasn't my intent.
But I can't change you or your impressions--you're going to feel however you do,
and you're certainly entitled to that.

I haven't discouraged or flamed one person to disagree with my op.
They too are entitled to feel anyway they like about my words.

Is it really 'white men'? I don't think so.

Throughout history - since Rome, anyway - some white men have been in power. But it's been far from all of them. Blaming white men for society's ills is like blaming all dogs for the bite that you just got from the one still holding onto your leg. Go to any period in history since the rise of Rome, and pick a random white man, and he won't have any more power in society than the average white man has today. Average Roman - plebe. Average medieval European - peasant. Average Renaissance male - farmer, shopkeeper. Same thing today.

I will not by any means argue with you that white men have not had a privilege status in American society. However, I believe that that privilege is mostly illusion. The average white man has never had any more significant chance of becoming part of the ruling elite than any other group, although it certainly can appear that way. The real power remains with the real money - old money especially. They are the ones that make the decisions. They are the ones that effect the law, and control the economy.

So the average white male (back in the 70's) had a lot of heartburn about the changes in society, not because they were losing their privilege, but because they were losing their illusion of privilege. And that illusion was given to them for a reason, the same reason that the racial and sexist jokes you talk about are around. They keep us fighting among each other. The white male thinks he had it good, and is afraid of change, but likely he never had it that good at all. Everyone else thinks the white male has it made, but the real ones who have it made keep that opinion going to kepp the focus off of themselves.

So, don't be too hard on the average white male. Welcome him. He really is a victim here, just like everyone else is. He may not have realized it before, but he's an opponent of the true ruling elite.

White males - opponent of the ruling elite
Women - opponent of the ruling elite
Blacks - opponent of the ruling elite
Hispanics - opponent of the ruling elite
Labor - opponent of the ruling elite
Environmentalism - opponent of the ruling elite

The ruling elite is for themselves over everyone else. Everyone that isn't part of big money looks like a pawn to the ruling elite, and they keep us from getting together by keeping us arguing amongst ourselves. If we are ever going to have the real progressive change we want, we need to recognize that we are, all of us, on the same side against the ownership class. Until then, the moneyed class will sit back and laugh.

who the ones at the top of the list have power over further down the list.

"White males - opponent of the ruling elite
Women - opponent of the ruling elite
Blacks - opponent of the ruling elite
Hispanics - opponent of the ruling elite
Labor - opponent of the ruling elite
Environmentalism - opponent of the ruling elite"


I see the point you are trying to make in your post but it always comes back to white males inability to face the FACT that they are granted an implicit individual privilege (however it plays out in their individual lives) by the existence of the UNIVERSAL privilege of (white) males on most of the the planet.

Pretending otherwise is disingenuous and insulting to the parties that you claim here more white males are ready to recognize their solidarity with.


"Go to any period in history since the rise of Rome, and pick a random white man, and he won't have any more power in society than the average white man has today. Average Roman - plebe. Average medieval European - peasant. Average Renaissance male - farmer, shopkeeper. Same thing today."

You blatantly ignore the historic power of males over females and "same thing today."

Actually, I'm not claiming that white men are ready to recognize their solidarity. Many aren't. They need to be though, because that's the only way true progressive change for the good of all will arrive.

And I'm not arguing that men haven't dominated women throughout history, and in many cases still do. But, as far as true control in society goes, white males may have had a measure of privilege over other groups, but their relative ranking as a whole has never come close and never will come close to the moneyed elite. To them, all of us are just The Great Unwashed. Society is run that way too - the real decisions about what direction society heads are made outside of the public realm. We're seeing another example of that occurring now.

In other words, what I'm arguing is that all of us need to see past the divisiveness keeping us apart for the benefit of the elite. White males may be at the top of the list I put up, but as a group they don't register any more than anyone else to the big players. I, as a white male, even an educated white male, am not going to be accepted into the inner circle of society's economic decisionmakers as anything more than a useful piece of information, just like anyone else.

white males.

Historically.

Goes with the territory.

White males may have all the money, but that doesn't mean that all or even most, or even any but a very few, white males are the ones with it. Historically or otherwise. The ones that don't have it are just as much on the outside of the group that does as anyone else is.

You can't hold white males responsible for the actions of a few white males, any more than you can hold all Colombians responsible for the cocaine trade, or all Arabic people responsible for 9/11.

"I see the point you are trying to make in your post but it always comes back to white males inability to face the FACT that they are granted an implicit individual privilege (however it plays out in their individual lives) by the existence of the UNIVERSAL privilege of (white) males on most of the the planet."


"White males may have all the money, but that doesn't mean that all or even most, or even any but a very few, white males are the ones with it. Historically or otherwise. The ones that don't have it are just as much on the outside of the group that does as anyone else is."

Both of those statements are not true.

The last bit is a strawman-- as if discussing the big picture aspect of male privilege = attempting to "hold white males responsible for the actions of a few white males."

The first statement is yours, and it is not true.

The point that you are missing here is that it just isn't true that all white men belong to the group of privileged men. Does the white guy with no money that works at McDonald's just to get by and lives in a rundown trailer really have inherent privilege in your opinion? Is he really at the top of the heap? He doesn't share in any universal white male privilege. He doesn't get treated with greater respect than other people; in fact, he's the brunt of jokes. What about the white homeless guy on the street? Do the police not chase him off or take him around the building to beat the shit out of him, and go only after blacks, women, hispanics? No.

There is not a UNIVERSAL WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE. White males may in general be treated better than other groups, but that is insignificant compared to the real power brokers of the world, who set whole economies to keep themselves in complete luxury at the expense of all of us, including the examples I just listed. You're trying to argue that white males have it better than other groups simply because they are white males. But there are many white males like the 2 examples I just listed, and they really don't have it better. I'm not trying to deny that white males in general have it better than other groups, I'm trying to say that in comparison to the moneyed elite it really doesn't matter. This is no strawman. You are talking about white males being inherently blessed with privilege. They are not. Many may have things better than other groups, but there is still only one group in charge of it all, and they keep it that way. Discussing how much better white males have it over the other groups is simply not going to get at the real problems we have in my opinion. In order to do that we need to all be on the same side.

1. "White males may have all the money, but that doesn't mean that all or even most, or even any but a very few, white males are the ones with it. Historically or otherwise."

That is not true.

2. "The ones that don't have it are just as much on the outside of the group that does as anyone else is."

That is not true.



And if you think the "first statement" of mine-- which I repeated because it seemed clear enough IMHO-- is "not true," then it seems you are more interested in arguing what you already think, than considering another POV.

I am not missing that point. And I am not saying what you think I am. Perhaps I could write more clearly and perhaps you could take you blinders off.

Oh well. :toast:

Because, as far as I can see from what you are posting, you think that rich white men have power because they are white men. That isn't true. Rich white men have power because they are rich. The white men thing falls by the wayside when it is convenient for the rich people to leave it behind. There are too many Japanese big players left over from their industrial boom in the 80's for the world to only care about white males. I am amazed that you are arguing otherwise, yet you clearly are, as you believe from the statements you quoted that poor, even homeless white men are still afforded a superior role in society than other people. You apparently see an entirely different world than I do, because the one I see has white homeless men in it, and white Wal-Mart greeters, and white men that hold up signs on the interstates asking for money, and white men that die in wars at an early age. Not one of these people has any kind of automatic privilege just because they are white males, yet you still try to claim that there is a universal privilege to being white. Whatever privilege there could be falls apart in these cases.

The true power to run society, to really define how things get done, belongs to rich white men, no argument. But they didn't get that way because they are white men. They got that way because they are rich. And until we address how that group operates and controls society, any attempt to correct the situation by addressing other groups is simply addressing the wrong group. It is ridiculous to argue that since wealth and privilege is correlated with white maleness, then all white males have privilege. Do a Venn diagram if you can't see this.

I'm not the one who needs another point of view. You do. You are bound and determined to focus everything on white men as a whole, rather than the ones that are responsible. I've already disproved the 'universal white male privilege' idea but you still insist on using it. I didn't come into this argument yelling names, I tried to simply look at the situation and point out that I think criticism needed to be re-addressed, that maybe the situation was more complicated (which BTW is my right because the OP was addressed at me because of the wording, and not 'rich' white males or 'conservative' white males, etc.), and every response I have gotten has implicitly stated that I can't see what is really going on because I'm a white male. Actually, you can't see what is really going on because the sparks from the axe you're grinding are blinding you.

cited of a white man not doing so well, be it a peasant in the dark ages or a burger flipper or a homeless person, his female counterpart is still going to have it worse. It's not something men are always so willing to see, but the stats are there, still are, sad to say.
so, no, you don;t have to be in the top 1% to be reaping rewards unfairly in this world.

That's entirely true. What I was arguing in this subthread is that the real people that do have it better are the wealthy elite, who have it so much better than all of us that discussing men vs. women is minor in comparison.

In other words, what I'm saying is that it isn't about men vs. women. It isn't about blacks vs. whites. It isn't about young vs. old, or any other division you want to make - except one. It IS about rich vs. poor, and I would like to see a time when we can put away all the other disagreements and really focus on that. Until we do, nothing is really going to change. Now it's about men vs. women. If and when we address that, it will then be about some other group. The issues are worthy of being addressed, but they never will be conclusively until the rich vs. the rest of the world issue is addressed because they are the ones causing all the other issues.

That's what I have been trying to discuss - that and the fact that I do still believe that the OP uses words which are inclusive of all white males, whether people see it or not. No disagreement with what you are saying at all, although I do still say that any idea of universal white male privilege dries up in a hurry when that white male becomes homeless. I don't think anyone has any advantages at that point other than their own specific characteristics, like strength or intelligence or maybe a good attitude.

solved. and the truth is, some of the people saying that, are always going to push it off. because it is too "hot button" for them or they like the status quo.... whatever.
for one thing, i am deeply disappointed Dems saw fit to allow the Supreme court to be reshaped at a grave danger to my reproductive rights, with nary a whimper.
after a while, you get a little disgusted that your core values are dismissed, tabled, while you are told stuff that matters to you is a "distraction" or bright shiny object and that maybe you should discuss it in a snakepit.
and as far as this infighting is keeping us from achieving things stuff goes, the party could quell it in a moment with unequivocal and full support of full equal rights for GLBT and for women. it's not much to ask for, i'm embarrassed that some people see it as hot button.

Why can't we make fun of them? Why can't we post satire slamming them? Your contention that the OP and the rest of us are holding all white males responsible is where you are wrong. I can understand missing the satire, at least in the beginning, but people who are trying to get you to see it aren't slamming you. We aren't including you in that smear. To me, that seems clear enough. To the other white males who see it, it seems clear enough to them. Many of them are joining us and laughing at the Rush Limbaughs of the world, past and present. It's that mentality being smeared.

But the fact still remains that the post WASN'T ADDRESSED THAT WAY. The post was written to include all white males, not just the ones the OP thinks are that way. The problem comes in because it talks about one group, but uses words that are inclusive of a bigger group. If you want to attack the Rush Limbaugh mentality, go right ahead and I'll join you. But don't use words that include me to do it if you want me to join you. It's no more valid than making fun of Stepford-wifish women by talking about white heterosexual women. Also, there's certainly enough people posting in this thread that do include all white men in that group. That's the idea behind claiming there's a universal white male privilege.

I would love for you to hold the Rush Limbaughs of the world responsible. The OP, however, does include me in with the Rush Limbaughs because of the words used, and you're damn right I find that offensive. If it were more specific about who it was talking about, maybe I wouldn't be offended by the OP.

I don't get where you're seeing that you were included in this. I just don't.

The people posting in this thread that you refer to are likely just frustrated in their attempts to get through that this wasn't a broad brush smear of all white men. I haven't seen any post that slams all white men. Your claim that the idea of universal white male privilege is smearing all white men is also false. There is indeed a universal white male privilege. Being white and being male and being heterosexual put you in a majority, it's a simple as that. I'm white and heterosexual, and I don't deny that, and I don't get upset whenever anyone points out that fact. Because racial and sexual inequality and homophobia exist, as I'm sure you wouldn't claim otherwise, it is not smearing all white men to point that out, because it isn't claiming that it is the *fault* of all white hetero men that that privilege is there. The fact that there are a lot of unsuccessful white males out there doesn't disprove that fact any more than the existence of successful black people disproves the fact that racism is still alive. It may not be my directly my fault as a heterosexual that homophobia exists, but I'm not going to stop the GLBT movement from pointing out that homophobia and satirizing it just because I'm straight and I insist my feelings be spared. It's not directly my fault as a white person that racism exists, so I'm not going to stop black people from pointing out and satirizing racism and insist they spare my feelings. I'm smart enough to realize that racism and homophobio do indeed exist and are worthy of scorn and satire, and that it isn't all about me.

It seems to me you are turning this into a general debate about male white privilege. Disagree that it exists, but it doesn't change the fact that you were not smeared by the OP. You simply weren't, not any more than I'm smeared as a white person whenever anyone slams racists with satire. Do you get upset whenever anyone slams the Ku Klux Klan and paint them as imbeciles? Likely not. The OP was slamming a facet of society that does exist, and who used to be more powerful once upon a time, and are indeed lamenting the death of their way of life. They happen to be white males for the most part, which is why that particular status was used to identify them. If you don't lament about losing your privileges the status of white male afford you and used to afford you even more once upon a time, then you weren't included as the OP's target.

This post is poorly written because I'm in a hurry, and I really do have to go, but I hope this thread isn't locked because I'd like to come back to this. I think it's important.

You included it, and yet you still don't see it for some reason.

Of course I don't get upset at smearing KKK members. Why should I? I'm not one of them. The OP however, doesn't talk about groups like that. Instead it talks about white heterosexual males. I'm not at all arguing that that faction of society doesn't exist. But talking about white men alone doesn't address them. It addresses all white men, and to say that it doesn't when it would be just as easy to talk about white rich men or white conservative men or white redneck men or whatever group you want to talk about is simply not true. Part of why it is OK to satirize racists is that it is apparent that racists are the ones being satirized. The OP conflates the issue to white heterosexual men, and your claiming it doesn't will not change the fact that the title alone talks about white heterosexual men, and there is nothing in the piece which says anything about the subset of white heterosexual men as being different from the whole group. Why shouldn't I be offended? The post is directed at me, inadvertently as it may be, but still directed at me. By not being specific about who the post was directed at, it does indeed include me, and I am lumped in as part of the OP's target. It doesn't smear all white men to point out that racism and homophobia exist, you are right, but it of course smears all white men to talk about it as if it were a white man's problem instead of it being a white bigoted man's problem. That's the difference. It is no different than saying all women are shallow because a group of white suburban wealthy women are shallow. Just because some or most of a target group fit a certain demographic doesn't make it right to talk about the larger demographic in terms intended for the smaller one.

She very clearly meant the white heterosexual males who are lamenting the loss of the power being white heterosexuals males gave them. You are also a white heterosexual male, but you aren't one of them, are you? She used the terms White, and Heterosexual, and Male, because those are the terms her target use. "White Men are a Dying Breed because of those Damn Libruls!" She's using their terms. If you want to get angry at anyone for broadbrushing and including you where you shouldn't be included, it should be them! Scream at them that you aren't one of them. I'd back you up 100%. They think you are, because they think all White Heterosexual Males (again, their terms!) are a dying breed, and they do include you in that and feel you should agree with them. The OP's response to the Rush Limbaughs claiming "Pity us poor White Heterosexual Males" was essentially "Oh, boo hoo, pity you poor White Heterosexual Male, let us mourn"


She is dealing with them on their level, and you are no where in this equation unless you're one of the Rush Limbaughs, or you're laughing along with her in support of her. But you were not intended as a target. The Rush Limbaughs are couching this debate, and she was just throwing it back in their face using their terms. .

The fact that there are advantages to being male is an illusion? Or that the only white people who benefit from it are the elite? Honestly, I don't think so. I think many white people, myself included, simply aren't always aware of how they benefit from the advantages the color of their skin give them. Many males simply aren't aware of the advantaged being male give them. No doubt, things are improving. That was the point of the OP. I thought it was clear enough that this was meant for those white males who mourn the days when those advantages were even greater. My white male husband whom I love was able to see this. Even at DU, we see racism, sexism, and homophobia. Why the minority are never allowed to react to this is a mystery to me. I don't get offended when black people discuss racism. I don't get why some men always have to feel that their featherers are ruffled when sexism is discussed. I don't get it.

The thing is, we can't ever discuss these issues without wounded pride coming in to squash the debate. No matter how thoughtfully couched, no matter how careful not to offend, there are always the white males who claim they're different and they don't like being included in the broad brush smear so shut up already. It's a shame.

The point is that 1) the advantage to being a white male isn't universal by a long shot, and can be taken away at any time (ask a homeless white male about that one), and 2) the advantages they do have are insignificant compared to the advantages of the wealthy elite, which is where efforts should be focused if we want them to succeed. That's what i have been trying to argue all along.

My pride isn't wounded because of the debate. My pride is wounded because the debate is framed by the words used to include me as the bad guy. The wording wasn't thoughtfully coached in this case - if it were, it wouldn't be about white men in general, and the words used are just that. Do you think that white men on DU in general aren't any different than the ones the OP talks about, who are really more descriptive of Free Republic or Little Green Footballs? If not, then the post agrees with you, because that's what the words used actually say. This is the reason why some men get their feathers ruffled when sexism is discussed. The words are directed at all men, even if you think that describing a subset of all men redefines those words to that specific subset. It doesn't. Minorities may talk about racism, but if they do it by saying 'white people are X' than how is that any different than saying the same thing about any other group? If someone doesn't generalize about a group by race, it isn't racist. If they do, it is. That's what racism is, after all.

I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I've instead been trying to point out why it is that the OP is a broad brush after all, and I don't like being associated with Rush Limbaugh just because of my gender and skin color. Honestly, why is it such a problem to ask that the words used to describe people in the post are specific enough to actually describe the people in the post? All it would have taken is one modifier - 'conservative' or 'rich' or 'redneck', etc. Leaving out that modifier means it includes everyone who is a white male. Why shouldn't I be offended by that? There's nothing in the post which says that it is directed at a specific group other than white males, and instead of the post really redefining the group it's talking about as the Rush Limbaugh wannabes, leaving out the modifiers that would clarify that only serve to paint everyone who is a white male as the Rush Limbaugh wannabes instead. Why should anyone say that racism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, sexism is wrong, and then turn around and say that bigotry isn't wrong if it is directed at white men instead, and that we should just get over it?

I don't think you honestly mean to say that, even though that is how it is coming across. If you do realize they exist, then I don't understand why you can't understand that that is where the privilege is. Because racism, sexism and homophobia exist, then anyone who isn't a black, woman or homosexual generally speaking automatically has an edge up on those who do, because of that racism, sexism and homophobia that exists. That doesn't mean it always translates to instant success, and the fact that there are indeed white homeless men is attributed to the fact that economic status is also very important. As you say, being rich does indeed give one a boatload of power. That doesn't negate the other factors that also give one power, such as race, sex and sexual orientation. I can think of several ways my white skin gave me some advantages, no matter how small, in my life. Most can, if they really think hard about it. Because I'm not a millionaire, and because I've had failures in my life, doesn't change that.

ETA that there was indeed a time when my white skin would have made an even bigger difference, in the past. There are people who lament that fact, the fact in no longer means as much as it once did. That is who the OP addressed, and because she used the exact terms they use, it was made clear that is who she meant.

The words used in the OP didn't include you as the bad guy. I think you read it through your point of view and saw them that way. I do think the way you downplay how a person's status in their race and sex affects them in society is coloring how you're reading the OP.

I know I said I was leaving, and I swear I will :)

And I didn't intend to make it sound that way, If i did, I apologize. My disagreement with you on this issue stems from the fact that you think the OP was written in exact terms that made it clear that she was talking about a group we will call Rush Limbaugh wannabes, or RLWs for short. I disagree with this, because the words used were specifically white heterosexual males, and nowhere is it more specific than that. Because the OP didn't specify RLWs, the post does come off as being directed at all white heterosexual males, and there is nothing in it to say otherwise. If the OP did talk about RLWs, I would be in total agreement. It doesn't, so it calls me a RLW instead of talking about them.

is to be oblivious to the fact that those Rush Limbaughs exist. You know they do. You've heard them speak that way. It's why I'm surprised that you and others aren't grasping the satire. No good satire explicitly claims it is such, or it isn't good satire. This is DU, the very place such satire should work the best. Post this on a right wing board and I'd expect this sort of reaction, because right wingers often miss satire. Add to the fact the OP and others who've repeatedly stated over and over that it wasn't a broad brush smear but satire aimed at the actual offenders, and the only options now are to admit you missed it, or continue to claim that the OP really did smear all white hetero males. Given how many people got the satire, the better bet is that you probably missed it. All good satire has people who completely miss it. I've done so in the past, usually when it deals with a subject I don't know much about, or I'm too emotionally invested in it and my blind spots cause me to miss it.

Which would imply that any other advantage is illusionary. Which is what Pithlet and I are questioning. There is real advantage, not as much now as before, in being white, hetero and male. Doesn't have to be a great advantage, could be rather small, but it is still an advantage. Now maybe you meant the ruling elites have more power, much more. No argument there. Still, there is some power, privilege in being white, hetero and male, right? You don't get pulled over for being black do you? Easier for you to get credit being a white guy, right? Of course, these are generalities and to try and apply them to specifics is a fallacy of logic. I'm afraid that is what most posters are doing here already. And it shouldn't have to be stated, but generalities are not stereotypes.

Before 1965 if you were a white guy going for a job and your competition was a black guy you got the job. Hell, in most parts of the country if you were a minority you couldn't even apply for certain jobs. Promotions? Extra points for being a white guy. Commission in the service? Mostly white guys. Admittance to college, Law school, Medical school, Vet school? Extra points if you were a white guy, if they even considered admitting a minority. Yeah, the vast majority white guys do not fall into the "power elite", those who really run things, but don't be fooled, it paid to be a white guy in this society til recently. Still does to a certain extent.

Also, understand that it isn't even something that you have to actively perceive or acknowledge. It was just there, you had better options then other members of society whether you knew it or not, whether you actively took advantage of them or not. That is just the way it was.

All those you cite above; Roman male, Medieval male, Renaissance male, all had better standing and privileges, in their societies, than minorities or women had during the same time and place.

This isn't about "all white, hetero males are bad". It's about those that want to cling to their privileges and fret about the lose of those privileges. There are subtle signs and signals that those who wish it was the way it was before use to remind the "other" of their place. When you talk about the ruling elite, remember those are the ones that gave the white, hetero male his privileges. Why? Because, its easier to control the rabble when they are divided and fighting among themselves for these small advantages that separate them from the underclass. They certainly don't want us to see each as equals and cooperate. There is too many of us and so few of them. Class, money, "race", sexual orientation, etc. some of the things that keep us from recognizing and doing something about the ruling elite.

You don't get anywhere by belittling a group of people. Especially a group of people who you could just as easily be thanking for helping YOUR group make the progress it has made. White men have stood side by side with other groups of people and literally even sacrificed their lives in an effort to combat inequality.

I dislike OP's like this because I see it as actually being counterproductive. Sure, there are lots of rah rah back-slappers that are happy to jump on the bandwagon for their own personal reasons. But it also turns people off who might otherwise be an ally. You certainly wouldn't get ME to sign on to your movement if you more or less classified me as falling into a category labeled "Asshole" as a result of gender and race. There is absolutely NO WAY you can not read that OP and seriously think that everybody would understand that you were only referring to certain people in that classification.

And that's a poor way to communicate. How would a little white boy feel if he read that OP. I wouldn't want my little son to read something like that. If he was at all sensitive it would make him feel bad about himself. How's that helpful????? There's nothing wrong with pointing out the inequities between genders or races or whatever. But the inequities are not as simplistic as white man vs. everybody else. And it's hurtful to portray it that way. It's hurtful to the MANY millions and millions of white men who are on your side and who have helped the causes we care about and it's hurtful to the cause itself because it's not inviting people on board to join your cause, it's merely excluding people from it.

:thumbsup:

And you find me a white man who can post a similar OP and not get their asses handed to them by people from all groups of minorities AND white men, and then I'll stand back and say that you and I live in a world where white men deserve to be villified.

But you and I both know that would never happen. If a white men started an OP throwing women or anybody non-white in a negatively-labeled category that person would be ostracized and I'd bet my house that white men would be just as quick to condemn that attitude as any non-white/males.

Just because I'm a female doesn't mean I have a free pass to villify the traditionally dominant race/gender with my girlfriends and feel justified in doing so simply because *some* white men have done that to me. The same holds true for any other group who has a chip on their shoulder over the inequities that exist on this earth.

That stinks.

If you care about the cause then make it better. But don't pat yourself on the back thinking that you're making it better by shoving your negative experiences in the faces of a bunch of innocent bystanders.

Teach your children right. Bring them up to see everyone as being equal. And when you teach the adults think about it before running your mouth and turning a bunch of people off. When you turn people off by taking the easy, simplistic and LAZY teaching style of dogging a huge group of people, you're essentially UNDOING a lot of hard work and progress made by many thoughtful and dedicated people who seriously care about making headway on the topic of equality.

A lot of what you said is what I tried to get at myself. However, tonight my writing is clumsy and you put things in both your posts much better than I could.

Until ALL OF US decide to realize that we are all one (and this means everyone, not just one group or another) we are never going to make true progress. The elite of the world have always been around, but until all of us recognize what they are doing to keep us divided, we will remain divided.

ALL OF US. It has to be.

Your rant at the end about "you" spewing some attitude toward a generic "you" in scattershot mode is just as much of a turn off and shows that overgeneralizations and projections aren't limited to any one gender. And the notion that the OP needed some seal of approval or whouldn't post at all or be accused of "essentially UNDOING a lot of hard work and progress made by many thoughtful and dedicated people who seriously care about making headway on the topic of equality" is more authoriatarian bullshit. SOME men on DU love to lecture women on how they should express themselves about men.

I took the OP at face value. There was something the OP was referring to, clearly from other threads and I didn't pretend to know what all they were. There was clearly a sardonic tone and it was what it was. It certainly wasn't "villifying." And no one was "shoving your negative experiences in the faces of a bunch of innocent bystanders."

These knee jerk defenders of all male dignity -- whether they be male or female -- always overlook the obvious fact that males dominate the planet.

'Males' dominate the planet. I'm a male, so I'm part of that group. I always will be one. It doesn't matter whether I really do try to live my life with dignity and equality, I'm still a male and I dominate. I will always be responsible for the real problem.

This is guilt by penis. Now do you see why it is that some of us object? If the situation were reversed, shouldn't you object?

"...it always comes back to white males inability to face the FACT that they are granted an implicit individual privilege (however it plays out in their individual lives) by the existence of the UNIVERSAL privilege of (white) males on most of the the planet."


It's not about you or your penis. But time and again, these discussions on DU devolve to the point where all SOME males can think about is what it says about THEM individually rather than as members of a group. The way you've reduced the discussion to a focus on you and your unwilling "responsibility."

"It doesn't matter whether I really do try to live my life with dignity and equality, I'm still a male and I dominate. I will always be responsible for the real problem."

So the question is:
Why are SOME men so damn afraid, so threatened, so unwilling to see the big picture and so fixated on their own egos?


Funny thing is, that's what the OP was pointing out.

B-)

The point is, the words used put the blame on me for being a white male. That is the exact same point that any member of any other group would object to if the post were directed at that group. That is exactly why it is harmful to discussion to post that way. Posts that talk about a group as one thing or another will always include the members of that group. To say that it is possible to discuss a group as being a certain way, and then say that members of that group shouldn't take it personally because it's about the group they belong to, and not them, is absurd. That's exactly the reason racist jokes are hurtful.

I think the real question here is why you feel you have to claim I am fixated on my ego when I have been trying hard to discuss this rationally. And another question I have is why you think saying white males have universal privilege simply by being white males shouldn't be taken by me as being about me, since I am part of that group.

White males can be in charge of the entire planet without all white males being in charge of the planet, or white males having inherent privilege. The one doesn't imply the other. The real big picture is that all of us are under the yoke of the wealthy few.

During my husband's career at EvilCorp, he has worked for (either directly subordinate to, or indirectly, as the person has been his boss's boss):

Two or three white women
Two African American women
Two or three white men
At least two heterosexual, African American men
One (maybe more) homosexual, African American man

Take a guess who the biggest asshole was? You'd be surprised, to be sure.

(Hint: It wasn't a white man.)

I think that the whole point is that the situation frequently IS reversed, and that people who object are then told to 'lighten up'!

It's not fair to sterotype all white males, I fully agree! It's not fair to expect them not to object if one does. But it's also not fair to expect females/ African-Americans/ gays/ Jews/ Moslems/ people with disabilities/ etc/ not to object if THEY are stereotyped, and to tell them to 'lighten up' and stop being 'PC'. I'm not accusing you of doing this, but some people do; and I think that is what the OP was all about.

There are some men that do just what you said. I'm not one of them.

The OP could have talked about white heterosexual REPUBLICAN men.

The OP could have talked about white heterosexual FREEPER men

The OP could have talked about white heterosexual BIGOTED men

But, the OP instead talked about white heterosexual men.

The opportunity was there to be more specific about the group being discussed. Being more specific would not have affected the post one whit, other than to make it more specific. Being more specific would also have resulted in many of us who were offended, not being offended. We would not have read it as a personal attack on us.

But, the post didn't do that.

It would have been easy enough to do that, yet that's not what happened. I can only assume that, since that's not what happened, the post was meant to include me as a white heterosexual man. That is after all what the words say. That is why I believe the OP was wrong - because it addresses the wrong group of people.

What I have been arguing all along is that we all have to drop our baggage and join together if we are ever going to see real progress. The wealthy elite control our media, among other things, and are very good at using our media to keep us all bickering so that we don't join together. The OP is exactly the kind of thing they use to do that. It really at its base is a passive-aggressive attack on white men in general, but that is covered for by hiding behind statements like 'why should you assume it applies to you?' Of course it applies to me - as I stated before, it was written to do just that. In point of fact it doesn't differ at all from telling black people to lighten up when they hear a black joke, or telling women to lighten up if they get paid less. The point is, all of those things are wrong.

There's a lot of rich white men that have power. But the reason they have power is because they are rich, not because they are white men. The real power to control what goes on, define who is acceptable, make one group 'in' over another, lies with the rich, not with the white men, and it is futile to talk about making society better by affecting change on the white men rather than on the rich. That's a bandaid where surgery is needed.

I prefer to empower women rather than merely just reinforce the notion that we should all feel dominated and angry about it.

You work on getting all the white men to stand in shame of themselves and ADMIT that they've been intentionally overlooking the male dominance of this earth. Let me know how your hard work to that end helps my daughter feel like an equal being who deserves respect in this world. Because the way it looks to me, your woe-is-me attitude does jack shit towards helping anything at all.

Some people genuinely care about equality. And some people "get something" out of their status as unequals. Whether it's the good feeling of being stroked by others in the minority group with the high-fives and the "you go girl" or whatever, or it may just simply be the subconscious joy of having a common bond with people simply by sharing the minority status. Who knows. But I can't take women seriously who claim to care about equality out of the same mouth that they are using to disparage a huge, gigantic group of people. And disparage the whole group is exactly what happened here.

productive.
:sarcasm:


You make the mistake (again) of wrapping up all your projections in a big ugly ball and hurling them at some generic notion of a cliche that exists in your brain-- not a real person. Funny, SOME males do that here too-- as if we are all the same person and they already know what we think, without us even having to say it :evilfrown: You are also echoing this "some people just enjoy being victims" bullshit that keeps popping up "even on DU."


If you think recognizing that males dominate the planet = a "woe-is-me attitude," then THAT is gonna do "jack shit towards helping anything at all."

Literally stunned.

The topic of women's rights, in particular, is literally one of the most dear issues to me. I nearly minored in the subject as I'd taken so many classes on the topic.

I've studied feminism from a psychological, historical, religious, and sociological perspective. I've read books and written papers on feminism related to: early Greek and Roman societies, conventional medical and psychological models, etc.

I cannot believe I'm having some argument over whether or not I recognize that males dominate the planet.

I can't believe the disrespectful and disgraceful way people are talking about white males throughout this thread in the context of equality. You've already alluded to my incomprehension and I have to say that you have found something that I can agree with you on.

It's incomprehensible to me that this is an acceptable way to talk about a group of people and that it's not only acceptable but encouraged and cheered on. It's incomprehensible to me that people don't seem to understand how outrageously hypocritical and divisive they sound.

It's really opening my eyes about the mentality of some of the people I'm associating with here and I've got to be honest it's really turning me off.

I appreciate knowing how DU gays and feminists feel about people like me. It is really just one less thing I have to worry about. Since I am the white devil and get no credit for a lifetime of support of equal rights for both sexes, all races and sexual orientation, I should embrace my status as a member of the master race/sex and not worry about the feelings of the people plight who have to deal with their own racial/ equality issues.

I am not offended as much as I feel sorry for anyone who harbors such resentment toward an entire group of people. It is a little embarrassing for the people who run DU I should think. This thread gives the impression that most DUers are gay minorities who hate white men. More so it gives the impression that the admins of the site have no problem with this impression and hate white men as well. Not really a god selling point when trying to promote a political agenda or party.

The thread is so over the top, I just have to roll my eyes and laugh at the op. i hope progressives don't let this kind of pathetic dribble seep into the dialog once we retake power. It would be a shame to waste a chance to make important changes on childish and fearful hate mongering.

You missed the point by a country mile! perhaps, you should ask why such a post was written. I know the OP and it was more sarcasm and irony than most here can digest. Perhaps you should rework your premise of: 'This thread gives the impression that most DUers are gay minorities who hate white men. More so it gives the impression that the admins of the site have no problem with this impression and hate white men as well." Read! Learn! Digest! Understand! It would only take a review of the past 5 pages of GD to "get" the point of the OP. DU is not about "gay minorities" by any stretch of the most racist imagination (and, NO, I am not calling you a racist).

I will say this...you don't know fear-mongering. You don't what it is to have your life and family threatened because of WHO you are! If you do, then please share that experience!

And as an intelligent and well educated "person," I read no sarcasm into a nasty, hating screed.

I have NEVER grouped anyone like that, other than the Pig Power Elite, and I don't care if they're MARTIANS, they certainly don't act very human.

gays feel.

They don't speak for me.

:eyes:

arguments based on reason rather than tribal identity. :-)

counting and tell all of the straight people that only the good gays like you are worth listening to?

Actually, I didn't tell anyone who is "worth listening to".

I said there are a lot of voices. Does that threaten you?

point out that which needs attention...and then there are those that are willing to grin and shuffle and play along; not wanting to rock the boat. I support those drawing attention to our society's ills. For supporting them supports us all.

Having fought for gay equality for several decades now, I know I'm not part of any shuffling or playing along.

The supermajority of heteros on DU are not the enemy.

As a hetero I do know that change only happens after voices are heard.

That said, I am not calling on ANY voices to be silenced.

times. And it becomes a learning experience for him. Unfortunately it does not for many here who truly do feel threatened. I am uncomfortable these days at DU because there is a decidedly different tone to the posts of those who would like to laugh at the expense of others; who shout at them to "get over it" etc. There are those on DU who are homophobic. It is a rather non progressive place to be at times. That said, I have seen you try to stifle voices.

me try to stifle voices.

Thank you.

178. I'd ask you not mistake a handful of the "DU gay-police" for representatives of how

gays feel.

They don't speak for me.


===================


I mean really, how stupid do you think we are?

Your comment about how this so called gay police doesn't speak for you is indirectly telling all of your straight friends at DU, to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

That is an attempt to "stifle voices."

You don't want people to listen to certain DUers you've determined don't speak for you.

And you're beginning to sweat and backpedal because we've caught you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Why does someone else having their own voice threaten you so much?

and you would like to stifle that message.

You think some of us are too aggressive and you don't like it because it makes the passive. "we're happy to sit in the back of the bus" gay DUers look bad to all the straight folks who support our "chosen" "lifestyle."

Bless them, amen.

Now how are you trying to stifle the message?

By telling people the "gay police" and my "tribe" doesn't speak for you.

I don't go around telling people you don't speak for me.

I don't think I've done that to anyone.

But you feel the need to do so.

And of course you threaten me. :scared:

myself.

How does that stifle you?

posted this:

178. I'd ask you not mistake a handful of the "DU gay-police" for representatives of how

gays feel.

They don't speak for me.

===========

What you posted WAS NOT saying you disagree on "certain points."

You said you disagree with a "handful of the DU gay-police," and you wanted it shouted from a mountain top that they don't speak for you.

as a disagreement with gays, or with the gay community.

Good luck in your strategy to get off the back of the bus by insulting democrats who support your legal equality any time you disagree with them.

I challenged your wording.

I prefer to group myself with those who didn't wet their pants over the N.J. decision and felt gay people were going to cost Democrats the election again.

And I refuse to beg and plead my case for basic civil rights to anyone. I don't care if they are Democrats.

I do know one thing. A passive strategy is one that is doomed.

Ask anyone whose been involved in civil rights.

Be serious. Rage? Laughable. This is probably the single most depressing thread I've read on DU.

you find this "probably the single most depressing thread I've read on DU," you must have very sporadic internets service.

You be serious.

...really. I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else. It is just depressing to me, that's all. The "rage" comment was, to me, ridiculous. What "context" should I view it in then?

something, and I think he is very angry that there are outspoken people about an issue I believe he also cares about...and he finally admitted it.

He's a big boy.....I think he can handle our exchanges which were very civil.

I'm sorry this thread is so depressing for you, but seriously, if this is what has you so despondent, you might need a break from DU.

if any "back of the bus" gay DUers on this board. I have seen disagreements over style and tone, but rarely on substance. I happen to believe that reasoning with and educating people is a far more effective method to achieve one's goals than being snide and bitter. And I do realize that there are times when someone is being so flagrantly bigoted, that the only rational response is justified anger. But that's not the appropriate response when straight people are merely trying to learn. That's just one man's opinion. If you disagree with it, that's what makes the world an interesting place.

I hardly think the "gay police" is turning off people who are "on the fence" about gay equal rights.

I'm sick and tired of hearing some very repulsive views from people who are supposedly liberal progressives.

I don't understand how any liberal could not support gay rights.

And I don't care to be chatty with them if that's the way they feel.

I'll leave that for you.

having a dialogue with people who hold "repulsive" views. I know I personally share your disgust with homophobic liberals. Those views need to be repudiated harshly, as has been reiterated here time and again. But I disagree with you that those "on the fence" or ignorant about gay people might not be turned off by hostility. They are human beings and react accordingly and hostility can indeed be a major turn off at times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=210&topic_id=12405#12468

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=47959#48066

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x231988#234001<<Yes, I think you would very happily have them be quiet.

There is, as I've posted above, a decidedly "sit down and be quiet" attitude among your postings. I, myself, can be guilty of it at times. I'm woman enough to realize that I might be flawed.