Oh White Male Privilege - You're so Funny

Pehaps I am a traitor to my race and sex, but I've long thought that the quickest route to improving the United States would be to disenfranchise white men.  (Hell, as a DC resident I'm barely franchised as it is -- something the teabaggers don't seem to mind at all.)  The decline of white men as a percentage of the electorate is possibly the most heartening demographic trend out there.  This week gave a few classic examples of why this is so:

First, Byron York stepped on his dick (no mean feat that) by noting that although Obama is popular, a lot of his popularity is due to the support of black people as opposed to normal decent Americans like Byron York.  What was breathtaking, though, was when called on this ludicrously racist statement, York reacted with a completely bewildered "what'd I say?" It did not occur to York that gee, black Americans are, well, Americans, and their votes and opinions count just as much as those of respectable white men like York.  (I know Byron, it's hard to imagine -- William F. Buckley would be baffled too and he was a really smart dude, always speaking Latin and shit -- a whole lot of shit.) 

Then Mark Halperin got into the act with this gem regarding Souter's retirement and likely replacement candidates: "White Men Need Not Apply."  Yes, we are an oppressed lot -- of the 110 Supreme Court justices who have served on the Court, only 106 have been white men.  That's only 96.4% -- surely we deserve better.  Look our presidential percentage has slipped from 100% to a mere 97.7% -- we're feeling vulnerable.  You people -- and I do mean you people -- need to understand this. 

I try to avoid racial or sexual essentialism -- being black or a woman does not, per se, mean that you will embrace policies that are favorable to your group, see e.g., Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, et al.  But I do think, as a general proposition, that the federal bench has been vastly improved by the addition of many more women, blacks, and hispanics in recent years.  (Based on my personal experience I can say that Bill Clinton appointed a slew of exceptionally gifted woment to serve as U.S. District Court Judges during his tenure in office.)  I think it would be great to see another woman or black on the Court, or a break through hispanic appointment -- but most of all, I would like to see an unabashed liberal put on the Court.

What I love in these discussions is when you hear clamoring for the appointment of the best person for the job, as if that were some mathematical certainty.  Being a judge is a very complex undertaking -- being a Supreme Court justice, even more so.  There are a host of qualities that legitimately should be considered in selecting someone for the Court -- brains obviously, writing skills, analytical ability, but also compassion, persuasiveness, a feel for the world beyond the court room, and , dare I say it, judgment.  There are a number of talented people who fit this bill -- I am pretty sure they are not all white men.

Finally, speaking of the awesome wisdom of white men, check out this piece by "Wanker of the Day"  Mike Galanos of CNN, denouncing the decision to make emergency contraception ("Plan B") available without a prescription or parental consent for 17-year olds.  Essentially his point is that this is bad because girls will be able to have sex "without consequences."  We can't have that you know.  Galanos, armed with his degree in broadcast communication arts and extensive background in sports "journalism," demonstrates the truth in the adage "opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one."  And sometimes the assholes have opinions too.  Our friends at Feministing take him apart. 

Plan B was subject to unprecedented scientific review by the FDA.  The scientists and public health experts who examined the issue had no qualms about making the drug available over the counter to girls of this age.  The only reason it was not approved in a straightforward manner was due to the political intervention of the Bush White House.  An incredibly well written and reasoned judicial opinion makes that clear.  Why am I guessing that Galanos read none of this material?  

Oh, and to continue the oppression theme, a gelding won the Kentucky Derby.      

Comments

[Corvus9]

Really, Sir Charles, I am surprised at you. This post is just a shocking abuse of privilege. Here you go, using your status as a white male to make fun of white males, knowing full well that, were white women or black people were to make fun of white men, they would get in all sorts of trouble. If they can't make fun of white men, then no one should. Stop making fun of white men, oppressor!

This is truly shameful.

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

Is there anyone with a brain that works for National Review? Or is being imbued with a wealth of stupid a requirement for the job?

[oddjob]

only 106 have been white men

No, no! That's not correct.

Some of those 106 were Jews!!!

[big bad wolf]

john henry. that was a horse redesigned for getting the job done over the years. perhaps the NRO people would volunteer their best man for the job for appropriate redesign?

i love the best person for the job line. it's never true, no matter who says it. degaulle refuted it best.

i don't think we will get an unabashed liberal, at least not one who has had a strong public voice. that may not be the worst thing, though. a liberal who can work the court, the way brennan did, may have more effect than a loud one. rhenquist, once he learned to stop shouting in his opinions, was a much more dangerous (and effective) conservative leader than scalia, though scalia got all the attention.

[Amanda Marcotte]

I love that the argument is that your teenage girl should in fact get pregnant as punishment for hussiness, and that parents should welcome this. Why ground her when you can force her to bear a child?

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Shameless is my middle name.

Calvin,

No. And yes. This has been another edition . . .

oddjob,

Excellent point. You'd think as a Brandeis grad I might have caught that. Incidentally there have been 7 Jewish members of the Court since 1916, which is a pretty good showing.

It should also be noted that Scalia and the Irish members of the Court also represent groups that have become white over the last couple of generations.

bbw,

John Henry -- what a great name for a workhorse, so to speak.

I agree with you on the idea that the ideal nominee would be personally persuasive and persistent in the way that Brennan was.

Amanda,

Speaking from personal experience I can safely say that having a child is the ultimate in being grounded.

[ballgame]

Sir C, I agree with the overall gist of your post here, but just FTR, I don't agree with the premise that "being male" = "being privileged" in the same sense that "being white" does. There's a world of difference between the notion that (to simplify) "all of the powerful people are male" and the notion that "all males are powerful." There are privileges and disprivileges attached to both genders.

But I do think, as a general proposition, that the federal bench has been vastly improved by the addition of many more women, blacks, and hispanics in recent years. … I think it would be great to see another woman or black on the Court, or a break through hispanic appointment -- but most of all, I would like to see an unabashed liberal put on the Court.

Here I agree completely.

[ballgame]

(Second paragraph was a quote from the OP, of course … not sure how that got borked.)

[oddjob]

Incidentally there have been 7 Jewish members of the Court since 1916, which is a pretty good showing.

Well of course! The world is run by a Zionist conspriacy, right?

(Now if you'll excuse me I must shower.)

[oddjob]

It should also be noted that Scalia and the Irish members of the Court also represent groups that have become white over the last couple of generations.

Very true. My mother's WASP parents were intensely racist towards Italians (along with kykes & niggers).

[oddjob]

(I meant to also observe that it never ceases to gobsmack me that our present anti-immigrant charge is led by someone whose last name ends in a vowel (Tancredo).)

[Gene O'Grady]

It isn't just the Italians; my wife's aunt, an immigrant from Sweden via Venezuela, was taunted by a schoolmate in rural Texas about 90 years ago with "I'm one of the only two white kids in the class. The others are just Swedes."

For what it's worth, the taunter became a lifelong friend.

[Sir Charles]

ballgame,

Believe me, I understand that not all males are powerful, nor even all white males. When you represent building trades unions as I do, that is readily apparent.

And yet, and this is worthy of a much longer and subtle treatment, many non-privileged white males embrace the politics of their "betters" so to speak, a toxic "false consciousness" that has served them rather poorly for a generation. Part of it seems to me to be a desperate clinging to the small bit of social status that came with the turf, i.e., "at least I'm not black or a woman." I think the empowerment of women is particularly threatening to this group.

oddjob,

It's strange to anyone with a sense of history to see people of Italian, Irish or eastern European ancestry in the vanguard of anti-immigrant considering how despised the groups were. And when a young Filipina woman takes the lead, one is beyond gobsmaked.

[Corvus9]

Sir Charles,

Well, the entire point of the nativist position is that "the door slammed shut after me." Because, really, everyone who isn't a full-blooded Native American is an immigrant. So if you have such urges, then of course, the most recent will scream the loudest, because they have the most to prove.

ballgame,

But isn't it just as reductive to say "whites are priveledged" as to say "males are privileged"? Just as not all males are powerful, not all whites are powerful. Some whites are pretty poor.

[jncam]

Sir Charles,
You're preaching to the choir and I enjoy the sermon. But, how do we convince the average Joe? Facts and numbers are not enough, despite reality's liberal bias. What's your one liner? What's your answer to,"the best qualified person for the job"?

[Sir Charles]

jncam,

I see you think me glib and ever ready with the mot juste to tame the savage beast.

Actually, I think the best way to respond is to make it a non-abstract proposition. Pick someone -- a woman or minority member with impeccable credentials and a compelling biography and I think the criticism diappears. Fortunately for Obama there are now many such candidates. This was a much more difficult proposition thirty years ago -- given how few doors had been open at the time. The lower courts, law schools, law firms, and public advocacy groups are loaded with talent from which to choose.

[SarahMC]

"Privileged" does not mean "economically powerful," Corvus9.

[ballgame]

But isn't it just as reductive to say "whites are priveledged" as to say "males are privileged"? Just as not all males are powerful, not all whites are powerful. Some whites are pretty poor.

While what you say is true, strictly speaking, Corvus9, Sarah MC is correct. At any given economic class, racial privilege pretty much only flows in one direction. The picture for gender is much more complicated, however; even in the same economic class, there are gender privileges and disprivileges on both sides of the ledger.

[Daran]

The picture for gender is much more complicated, however; even in the same economic class, there are gender privileges and disprivileges on both sides of the ledger.

Consider the following:

For every hundred black and white boys born, between the ages of 25 and 45 there are 86 black men left. Six more black males than white males are dead and eight more are missing. Of those 86, nine are in jail.

I doubt anybody here would be surprised at those figures, and just about everybody who subscribes to privilege theory would see this as a good illustration of white privilege.

In fact these figures are false. I adapted them from the following:

104 black boys are born for every 100 black girls. Between the ages of 25 and 45 there are 90 left. Six more males than females are dead and eight more are missing. Of those 90, nine are in jail. (Source: “A tough call”, James Flynn, New Scientist 6 September 2008).

There may indeed be "gender privileges and disprivileges on both sides of the ledger", but I have yet to be shown a privilege on the male side comparable with the privilege of, with near certainty, being able to reach middle-age verifiably alive and unincarcerated.

Yet those very same people almost without exception deny that there can be such a thing as female privilege.

[litbrit]

Daran, males are violent, due to a complicated mix of social modeling and violence-supporting hormones. They murder women, but to an even greater degree, they kill each other. It isn't a matter of privilege that women don't die at the same rate--we just don't get killed, or kill men --or each other--at anywhere near the same clip. The DOJ homicide statistics show men kill, and kill other males, at a hugely disproportionate rate.

[Sir Charles]

I suspect too that you will find that men die more often in vehicle accidents, or due to substance abuse, or accidents in the work place.

The latter reflects the disadvantage of doing a disproportionate share of physical labor -- construction, mining, agriculture, and emergency services work. The former -- that we are dumbasses.

[Corvus9]

I totally spaced on this thread. Didn't mean to not respond sorry.

Ballgame wrote "There's a world of difference between the notion that (to simplify) 'all of the powerful people are male' and the notion that 'all males are powerful.'" Very true. But would you say that there is a difference between the (simplified) phrases "all the powerful people are white" and "all white people are powerful"? I would argue yes, since there are lots of poor white people, and poor people are, basically by definition in a capitalist society, powerless. This was the sole argument ballgame made against "the premise that 'being male'='being privileged' in the same sense that 'being white' does." Yet if argument given for this being the case is false, then this is not proven to be the case. "Being male" and "being white" may equal "being privileged" in the same sense, whatever sense that may be.

Now, as to the case that "privileged" does not equal "economically powerful," as SarahMC, put it, I would agree. And I wasn't really trying to argue as much, I was merely trying to give a data point that refuted the original construction of ballgame's previous statement. That was unclear, and I hope the previous paragraph goes some ways towards clearing that up.

However, I would say this: I think that there is no such thing as a privilege that can't ultimately be measured in materialist terms. All forms of oppression or repression ultimately are expressed in such terms. If racism and bigotry among non-blacks in society did not result in an income gap and disproportionate imprisonment, it would not be a type of oppression. It would just be a weird quirk of certain people's attitudes, like not liking broccoli. Same goes for sexism. Sexism results in income disparity, which is the ultimate product of a whole host of ways, physical (abuse), psychological ("everyone knows women aren't as good as...", and institutional (Men hire and promote men), in which society disparages women. This is not to say all forms of oppression are economic in form, in fact most of them aren't, they are social, or even psychological. But without an ultimate impact upon your material conditions, it is not oppression, and people who do not possess it are not privileged. Now, if you wonder how it is that some people who do not have certain privileges nonetheless end up high in the world, that is always (ALWAYS) because they have other benefits, other privileges that balance those disadvantages out: good parents, natural talent or intelligence (if such a thing exists), a certain psychological make up, good looks. Maybe you just knew somebody who gave you a leg up. The pluses and minuses balance out until a person arrives at their level.

This is why ballgame's second point is just completely incoherent to me. There is no such thing as oppression within social classes, unless you are talking about within brackets. I mean, if a black guy and a white guy are earning the same amount, without the specter of racism the black guy would be earning more than the white guy. Now, this is not to say the white guy taking advantage of the black guy, because the white guy is probably operating at some disadvantage (being ugly, being insecure, mental impairment from a malnourished childhood) which, if not present, means he would be doing better too. But on any given issue, on any point, a source of oppression is holding someone back.

Now, this view only works if you have a pretty wide definition of what a privilege is, but I feel you have to do that in order to have any idea what's actually going on out there.

[Daran]

I suspect too that you will find that men die more often in vehicle accidents, or due to substance abuse, or accidents in the work place.

The latter reflects the disadvantage of doing a disproportionate share of physical labor -- construction, mining, agriculture, and emergency services work. The former -- that we are dumbasses.

One of the curious things I've noticed about discussion of this nature is that male characteristics which are problematic (or deemed to be so) tends to be attributed to men's character, but problematic (or problematicised) female characteristics are attributed to women's circumstances.

For example I would suggest that men's typically greater competitive drive is a causal factor (probably not the only one) both in men's greater vehicle accident death rate, and in men's greater representation in positions of power. Yet the analysis of the latter phenomenon would never stop at "women don't try hard enough".

[nimh]

because they have the most to prove

Good point, Corvus - but also because they have the most to lose. Newly arriving immigrants will primarily compete with the last generation of immigrants (and blacks, but that's a different story) for the same jobs, and if enough come in to drive wages down, it's the last previously arriving immigrants who are the first to suffer.

So in a way, from a POV of purely material interest, there's a rational economic reason why the most recent generation of immigrants would be the one to most urgently develop the desire to close the borders - to close the door behind them.

[ballgame]

Ballgame wrote "There's a world of difference between the notion that (to simplify) 'all of the powerful people are male' and the notion that 'all males are powerful.'" Very true. But would you say that there is a difference between the (simplified) phrases "all the powerful people are white" and "all white people are powerful"? I would argue yes, since there are lots of poor white people, and poor people are, basically by definition in a capitalist society, powerless. This was the sole argument ballgame made against "the premise that 'being male'='being privileged' in the same sense that 'being white' does." Yet if argument given for this being the case is false, then this is not proven to be the case. "Being male" and "being white" may equal "being privileged" in the same sense, whatever sense that may be.

Corvus9, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're pointing out that my earlier comments here did not provide evidence that males are not privileged in the same sense that whites are privileged. I don't disagree with you. My reference to the logical difference between "all powerful people are male" and "all males are powerful" was solely to highlight the erroneous presumption among some people that since, say, the Senate is overwhelmingly male, that must of necessity mean that 'men run society for the benefit of men at large'. (Of course, it's logically possible they do this, it's just not logically inevitable.)

I'm going to assume that we're both on the same page regarding racial privilege flowing only in one direction.

The rest of your comment is a lot more complicated to deal with. You seem to start with a number of premises that I don't agree with, and there are times when you appear to contradict yourself.

You introduce the concept of "oppression" in your comment. You appear to think that this is an organic aspect of the 'privilege dynamic'. Though you don't explicitly say this, you appear to believe that privilege is the unjust (and ultimately material) advantage that the privileged group derives from its oppression of the disadvantaged group. I don't subscribe to this premise, and am agnostic as to whether it's true or not. I think it's particularly misleading when applied to gender relations if you try to view those relations as a binary dynamic (men vs. women). Your premise probably has more legitimacy if you break things out a little more, i.e. alpha males vs. regular males vs. females. But I wasn't trying to go there.

If we stick with 'men vs. women,' then, my premise is that it's possible for men or women to be 'oppressed by gender' without necessarily implying that the 'other gender' must be the oppressor. (I also reject the idea that if one group of men are exploiting another group of men, this means that men are 'doing it to themselves.') Indeed, I see little analytical advantage in introducing the concept of "oppression" to this discussion (since it implies there must be an 'oppressor'). Instead, I was confining myself to the notion of "privilege" as "advantages one group has that the other doesn't," and assuming that if one group is "privileged" in some area, that's logically the same as saying that the other group is "disprivileged" in that area.

The second premise I take issue with is the notion that all privilege is ultimately material. It's not clear to me what, exactly, you mean by 'material'. AFAICT, you mean 'economic', but I'm not entirely sure that's what you're saying. If that IS what you're saying, then I categorically disagree with you. I think it's quite possible that a group could enjoy important, non-economic privileges over another group, and these privileges could be disconnected from each group's relative earnings.

[Corvus9]

We are indeed on the same page that racial discrimination runs in only one direction. I suppose from a certain point of view, one could argue that affirmative action is a kind of discrimination, in the strict sense of the word, but it's just an institutional attempt to correct for the racial discrimination that the system can't control. So until we get that one straightened out, it's a necessary compromise.

I was really just using oppression as a term because I was at a lost for a term to describe the flip-side of privilege, and it's the only one that seemed to fit. Maybe "disadvantages" would be better, but that sounds almost too neutered. Besides, I actually think that privilege is a negative concept. Something like "white male privilege," isn't really something white men have, so much as the absence of certain things that they don't have to put up with. People who are not white and not male have to put up with a lot of shit that people who are white and male don't have to put up with. It's not so much that there are added perks as "things one doesn't have to put up with." This makes it important to have a good term to describe the "absence of privilege," one that intuitively makes sense, but one that fits just right doesn't come to mind. You can sub in "oppression" up above with some more fitting term of you own choosing. (institutional bias?)

I would agree that it is possible for men to be oppressed by gender. However, in comparison to women, this oppression is pretty tiny, and the vast majority of it is mostly the ill effects being the beneficiary of oppression or the direct conduit of oppression, specifically such situations dehumanizing aspects. I don't think there is anything wrong with the term oppression for it's assumption of an oppressor. Society is basically either something of a collective delusion or collective agreement, so any oppression within it is ultimately the product of the collective, that is, us. So if you don't want to blame one particular group, you can always just blame everyone, especially our ancestors. I suppose disprivilege could be the would I am looking for, but it's not really a word, and by my standards, also a bit of a double-negative.

I most definitely did not use the word material to mean economic, in fact, I used the word specifically because economic is too narrow. For example, being wrongly imprisoned or sentenced unduly harshly is not really an economic problem. Sure doing prison time will hurt your earnings, but that pales next to the problem of being in prison. There are basically two aspects of human experience, which is one's material surroundings and one's psychological state. (Descartes pointed this out.) I am saying that discussing privilege should be understood in terms it's effects on one's material conditions. If you add up a person's privileges and disprivileges that will eventually equal their material state. I suppose, conversely, one could argue that privilege should really be measured in terms of one's psychological state, but that seems a lot harder to quantify.

[ballgame]

Interesting thoughts, Corvus9. FTR, I pretty strongly disagree with the notion that the gender oppression that men (as a group) experience is "tiny" or that this oppression is largely the ill effects of otherwise being the "beneficiary of oppression" (though I think there is something to your notion that some of it is due to being a conduit of oppression). I think there are a number of factors that work to obscure the oppression that men endure as men, though, so I realize your view isn't at all uncommon.

As far as the 'material surroundings' vs. 'psychological state' issue is concerned, I'm reminded of cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris's cribbing of the terms "etic" (referring to objective reality) and "emic" (referring to a kind of combination of experiential reality plus the narrative that a society tells itself about its world) … but those never caught on (at least outside the realm of cultural anthropology).

[Corvus9]

I would be interested to know what specific factors you area talking about. It's just that, as a male, and a white one to boot, there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of bullshit that I have to put up with just because I'm male. There's a whole lot of other sources of bullshit that I have to put up with, but none of them are really, "just because I'm a guy." Maybe I have just been an insufficient conduit of oppression to notice them, or something.

[froginthewell]

Ballgame's comment "Sir C, I agree with the overall gist of your post here, but just FTR,..." puzzles and upsets me. That sounds like a tacit approval for the hate-filled statement as "the quickest route to improving the United States would be to disenfranchise" the privileged classes.

This is particularly upsetting because most of ballgame's ( as well as his FC co-blogger Daran's ) posts are among the most nuanced, sober, surgically precise pieces of analysis I have come across in blogsphere. Why does someone put up with another person's hatred precisely when they both broadly fall into the same part of the political spectrum?

[litbrit]

the hate-filled statement as "the quickest route to improving the United States would be to disenfranchise" the privileged classes.

froginthewell, I'm guessing you haven't read Sir C's writings before. Perhaps I can help: push the tip of your tongue outward and sideways, between the upper and lower rows of molars, so that it creates a raised bump visible on your face from the outside. ;-)

[froginthewell]

Litbrit : I have only a vague idea of what you might be talking about. Is that an attempt to stifle discussion by making cryptic statements, so that someone who isn't used to your literary coding scheme can't decipher your comments, and consequently keeps silent for fear of coming across as stupid?

In any case, I am not sure you would give similar accommodations to comments of this ( Sir C ) sort that come from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[Corvus9]

I agree absolutely, froginthewell, as can be seen from my first comment. White men must absolutely stop attacking other white men. This kind of pointless sowing of division among our own ranks does us no good. I mean, if we don't stay united, how will we manage to keep oppressing everyone else?

[Daran]

froginthewell

Thank you for your kind remarks about my (and ballgame's) posts, but, since you invoke me in a comment in which you characterised another's words as "hate-filled", you put me in the position of having to disown yours. I do not find Sir Charles' remark "hate-filled". I think it is arguably misguided, but it is clearly not intended to be taken as a serious proposal anyway.

Also misguided, I would suggest, is posting a comment to a blog where you are not well-known (or not known at all) which merely denounces the words of a well-respected participant. The near inevitable result will be a hostile response, absent extraordinary restraint on the part the regular participants*. You'd get a better result if instead you explained why sir Charles' remark was so wrong-headed.

*I would also urge the regulars to exercise extraordinary restraint.

[froginthewell]

First : In case the blog doesn't welcome serious disagreement from those who aren't well known here, please do let me know. I have no intention of being a troll or starting a hate-war.

Daran : first, where is any necessity of your disowning my comment come in when I did not impute any specific position to you?

Secondly : As to why I think Sir Charles' remarks were wrong-headed. I happen to find misandry in joking about improving the world by depriving men of "universally recognized" human rights. Because it seems to me that the putative humor content in that kind of statement precisely lies in its potential to offend.

I am sure you have read several posts at Glenn Sacks' that reflect my line of thought, and hence I am sure you understand exactly what I am thinking of. The bottom line is : I am not at all persuaded that such comments are 100% purely in jest.

Now I realize that what I have offered isn't a foolhardy proof. It is some kind of "psychoanalysis" I believe in. But it still surprises me that you/ballgame either

(a) don't find gender asymmetry in this kind of humor pattern, or
(b) don't think that such gender asymmetry is indicative of any amount of hatred.

Well, I have to keep learning new lessons each day, it seems.

[Stephen]

As to why I think Sir Charles' remarks were wrong-headed. I happen to find misandry in joking about improving the world by depriving men of "universally recognized" human rights. Because it seems to me that the putative humor content in that kind of statement precisely lies in its potential to offend.

There's nothing in that which could reasonably cause offense. I keep hearing people talk about how people get offended too easily and can't take a joke, but when I actually see it in practice, 100% of the time it comes from a member of society's still-dominant group nursing a victim complex.

Just because you like to think you didn't win the gender-and-pigmentation lottery doesn't make it true. In the same way, just because an individual white male here and there can point to a woman or other minority who was hired or promoted in place of them doesn't mean A)performance issues weren't the determining factor and B)the white male in question isn't still a member of the most privileged, pampered group in the history of the world.

White males will never be disenfranchised, especially as a result of a white male joking about it. Yet members of this society still discuss how giving women the right to vote was a mistake. Women are routinely denied the right to control what happens to their own bodies. And that's in America; obviously things are much worse for women in many other nations. Get over it.

As to this comment:

In case the blog doesn't welcome serious disagreement from those who aren't well known here, please do let me know. I have no intention of being a troll or starting a hate-war.

Please don't interpret my comment as anything other than serious disagreement. If I didn't want your comments here, I'd delete them. I sincerely hope that you don't have an expectation of being able to post stronly-worded comments without receiving replies in kind.

[big bad wolf]

I just still can't get over that SC is ever anything but 100% serious. i'm having to rethink my whole life. surely, though, he must mean the music posts. right. that must be right. mustn't it.

[froginthewell]

On maturer reflection I think I should concede that "hate filled" was too strong a word. The truth is that I got extremely upset by that remark and instinctively tended to attribute it to hate.

So I think I owe an apology to SC. Also litbrit : I didn't get the reference to "tongue in cheek" at that time.

I still disagree with points such as "There's nothing in that which could reasonably cause offense.", but perhaps it isn't very profitable to split hairs on that as of now.

Just FTR, I am not white, though I tend to fall into the so called "white male side" of the argument.

[big bad wolf]

frog, may i call you frog, i think that you will find that this is one of the more congenial and generous sites on the web when it comes to discussion. it is true, as stephen has stated, that disagreement may greet comments, but that disagreement is almost invariably reasoned and willing, if not to be persuaded, to listen and engage. that is more than one gets many places. the price of this is that there are different world views and rhetorical styles, some of which involve (sometimes mordant) humor and self-and-selfgroup-deprecation. this is beyond contention a deep failing and one better served by therapy than drink, though drink is generally preferred and thus the humor persists amongst the reason. the humor may even be used, not to make a misandric or misogynistic point, but as balm on a gentle counter to a point one might think contains a bit too much of a rhetorical flourish. perhaps that is too indirect an approach, but we learn over time about each other's approaches and likely approach closer because of it, while still, i suspect, irking each other on occasion. good people here, i think, and quite smart. i learn a lot.

[ballgame]

I would be interested to know what specific factors you area talking about. It's just that, as a male, and a white one to boot, there just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of bullshit that I have to put up with just because I'm male. There's a whole lot of other sources of bullshit that I have to put up with, but none of them are really, "just because I'm a guy." Maybe I have just been an insufficient conduit of oppression to notice them, or something.

In terms of "factors that work to obscure the oppression that men endure as men," Corvus9, I would have to cite male stoicism and societal aversion to male vulnerability (which are really two sides of the same coin). There are others. In terms of 'bullshit that men have to put up with,' there are a large number of things (any one of which may or may not have affected you, specifically, Corvus9). To take just one of the more "etic" examples, men are more likely to be injured or sickened in the workplace than women … about 50% more likely. Men are also more likely to be killed at the workplace … vastly more likely, as it turns out: men are killed on the job at a rate about 800% as often as women. (That's not a typo, that's 8 with two zeros.)

[Sir Charles]

Oh wow -- a man goes on a bender in the City of the Big Shoulders, Hog Butcher to a nation, and I miss all the fun.

Sorry kids, but I've been in meetings in Chicago and suffered with avery balky internet connection yesterday afternoon.

frog,

Welcome aboard here -- I think that as a life-long white guy I am allowed a little bit of humor at the expense of my peers.

As I pointed out, I actually spend the bulk of my life representing for the most part, white men, in the building trades, people who I don't feel are overly privileged. One of the things that my comments do express though is the frustration that one often feels in dealing with a group of people who often vote against their own interests due to complex attitudes that are, in fact, associated with the perceived attack on certain kinds of privilege and stature that they possess or once possessed.

Unfortunately, I now have the privilege of heading to O'Hare Airport, which is truly no privilege at all. So a pleasant day to all.

[froginthewell]

Thanks for your polite replies. Let me reiterate that I wasn't looking towards stirring anything up at all. There are things which perhaps inexplicably upset some people, wringing out reactions that seem strange to others. Please view my comment to be of that kind.

[Sir Charles]

frog,

Not a problem.

I think people reacted to the "hateful" label -- now I may occasionally say hateful things, but that wasn't one of them.

I hope we are pretty welcoming here to anyone who can articulate a reasonable point of view, i.e. not Lyn.