'Straight White Male' is the Real World's easiest difficulty setting

Seth:

Probably not safe to try to predict what I say that way. I have a, er, different cultural background, so my cultural language toolbox is just not the same. It never even occurred to me to play that sort of a game. I think we all know how much this has gotten me into trouble in the past.

LarryC wrote:

Seth:

Probably not safe to try to predict what I say that way. I have a, er, different cultural background, so my cultural language toolbox is just not the same. It never even occurred to me to play that sort of a game. I think we all know how much this has gotten me into trouble in the past.

True that! It seems you're still playing a derailed gotcha game with 16Blue, but i'll blame that on your culture.

I guess it's a perception thing because I didn't read the article and at all feel his assumption is that his entire audience would agree with him. Is it the opening few lines that give you that impression?

SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Another test, less obvious: What do you think is not normal about your body? Hair color? Eye color? Number of limbs? Number of toes? Absence or presence of nose? Head count?

Normal needs context? For a Caucasian? For a human? For a 29 year old white man with Irish, Italian, and Eastern European heritage?

The last 4 I can answer for any group of humans, the rest depends.

There you go - something you didn't know. There is a tribe in Africa where they have two toes instead of five - probably a genetic mutation passed on through extreme isolation. In their locality, having two toes is normal. In this case, you didn't know this, so you assumed that five toes was normal, which is what I said would naturally happen - unless you are exposed to differences, you assume that what you see or know is what is normal. I have the same weakness, and I live in an maritime country with visitors from every country in the world, just about. I still fall prey to "What I am is normal" thinking.

My personal experience here is that once people in general stop self-identifying as a particular "race" or "gender" it stops being a tribal identifier, by removing the "I am X" part of the "X is normal" thinking process.

I do not self-identify as any race, because I think that the entire concept is ridiculous. Many of my colleagues and friends exist in the same paradigm (but not all in my locality). This makes it hard for to me profile based on "race," because I often simply don't see it. A man with black skin is a man with black skin. Where I live, he could be an African from Nigeria, a half-Filipino/half American, and aboriginal descendant, a Frenchman, German, or Chinese (or any of several other possibilities I can think of) In my environment, it's simply pointless to generalize, so many people simply stopped doing it.

LarryC wrote:

I still fall prey to "What I am is normal" thinking.

I thought you were promoting the idea of thinking you are normal. That was my entire problem with your post in the first place. That's the thinking that needs to change, not "I am a man" or "I am straight" or "I have white skin."

Edit: Oh look, I brought it back to the original topic. Good.

SixteenBlue:

I am not promoting it. My thinking is that it's probably impossible to change at all. I don't know whether it needs to change or not; but given its prevalence I don't think it's plausible, regardless of whether or not it needs to change. You might say that I'm advancing a solution that I think is more practical. If you stop thinking of yourself as a "man," you stop assigning values to statements as "Be a man," or "That's not man enough." "Man" simply becomes an anatomical reference, not a part of the self. By extension, you stop thinking of it as an essential personality characteristic in others.

Shepard is not "a man." He or she is a commander, a soldier, a leader, and a hero. Oh, and by the way, she's got kickass armor. Boobs? I dunno. Didn't notice.

Is there anything about "I have white skin" that is all that important? Why is it necessary to itemize that as part of one's self image?

I confess that part of the reason that I can't understand the essentials of this is because my skin color is naturally highly changeable. Whether or not I have fair skin depends on what sport I've been doing, not who my parents happened to be.

LarryC wrote:

SixteenBlue:

I am not promoting it. My thinking is that it's probably impossible to change at all. I don't know whether it needs to change or not; but given its prevalence I don't think it's plausible, regardless of whether or not it needs to change. You might say that I'm advancing a solution that I think is more practical. If you stop thinking of yourself as a "man," you stop assigning values to statements as "Be a man," or "That's not man enough." "Man" simply becomes an anatomical reference, not a part of the self. By extension, you stop thinking of it as an essential personality characteristic in others.

Shepard is not "a man." He or she is a commander, a soldier, a leader, and a hero. Oh, and by the way, she's got kickass armor. Boobs? I dunno. Didn't notice.

Is there anything about "I have white skin" that is all that important? Why is it necessary to itemize that as part of one's self image?

I confess that part of the reason that I can't understand the essentials of this is because my skin color is naturally highly changeable. Whether or not I have fair skin depends on what sport I've been doing, not who my parents happened to be.

Why is it necessary to itemize any form of appearance? Blonde, brunette, green eyes, short, tall? Who cares? Why describe ourselves at all, appearance or otherwise?

Ulairi wrote:

if it wasn't for the internet and this forum, I think I would have gone through my whole life without ever having these topics enter my worldview at all and I have lived in Hong Kong, China, been to Europe, and Taiwan extensively so it's not like I'm not well traveled and I read a lot to, so it's not like I'm some dullard who never picked up a book.

I guess it's kind of like a liberal arts type having no idea what people are talking about when they mention membranes and string theory and spooky action at a distance. The reason to get excited about finding a Higgs Boson probably makes a lot of similarly well-educated people with a rich life experience scratch their head. Most people think The Raw and the Cooked is just a Fine Young Cannibals album (and before we get to Communion, we can talk about the Mommy Wars and breastfeeding ; D ) but how many people know where that phrase comes from?

In fact, now that I think about it, there was a discussion on here about the origins of the word "meme". That's probably where you hear about stuff like this, only in an indirect form. Like you've probably heard of this kind of gender studies talk, just you know it as Hostile Work Environment claims in sexual discrimination law.

Heck, think about your average game player being asked out of the blue to talk about the dissonance between the narratological and the ludological! Everyone* knows BioShock is awesome though.

*(generalizing here!)

SixteenBlue:

It is a necessary part of human thinking to have a self-image. It is what allows us to be self-aware and to put ourselves in the place of others. This self-identification process normally begins at about age 3 or so. Having gender identity is also part of psychological maturation. "I am a girl" or "I am a boy" is one of the essential self-awareness events in early life. We can lessen the impact of these normal self-discovery and self-awareness processes by firmly separating secondary gender identifiers from essential ones. It should not be bad for a male to wear a pink skirt. This naturally leads him to form no preconceived value judgments about anyone else who might wear a pink skirt as they classify as "normal."

To the main point, it would make it more convincing to teach children and others these things once we adopt them for ourselves. I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image. That goes beyond just the straight male white problem - that's also the core problem behind impossible beauty standards for men and women.

LarryC wrote:

SixteenBlue:

It is a necessary part of human thinking to have a self-image. It is what allows us to be self-aware and to put ourselves in the place of others. This self-identification process normally begins at about age 3 or so. Having gender identity is also part of psychological maturation. "I am a girl" or "I am a boy" is one of the essential self-awareness events in early life. We can lessen the impact of these normal self-discovery and self-awareness processes by firmly separating secondary gender identifiers from essential ones. It should not be bad for a male to wear a pink skirt. This naturally leads him to form no preconceived value judgments about anyone else who might wear a pink skirt as they classify as "normal."

To the main point, it would make it more convincing to teach children and others these things once we adopt them for ourselves. I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image. That goes beyond just the straight male white problem - that's also the core problem behind impossible beauty standards for men and women.

Right, which is why it's necessary to also self-identify by color of your skin just like any other attribute. I see no problem there. By not defining anything as normal then you have no issues with men wearing skirts. I feel like you and I are saying the same things but you've got your conclusion backwards.

LarryC wrote:

I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image.

You do realize that sexual identity and gender are not purely appearance-based, yes? And that race is only purely appearance based when you take a very narrow definition of race that does not involve culture.

Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image.

You do realize that sexual identity and gender are not purely appearance-based, yes? And that race is only purely appearance based when you take a very narrow definition of race that does not involve culture.

Or genetics, much to the chagrin of some posters here.

SixteenBlue:

Actually, no, we're not. You're saying that it's easy to get people to accept things they don't know as normal, even when you yourself defined an African tribe out of normalcy simply because you were unaware of their existence. It's very hard to fight that sort of thinking. I have no proof to it, but I think it's because of the human brain's pattern-seeking processes. It requires a baseline to work so it just takes what it sees most often and applies it as a baseline.

Where I see a problem is that it seems to me that the basic problem of racism can be traced to people self-identifying as white (and necessarily identifying others as "not white.") In a world where every person is fair skinned, "white" would not be a self-image attribute, because everyone is fair-skinned. Similarly, we don't think about discriminating against the transparently-bodied and whether or not our bodies are opaque is really not an essential part of our self-image.

We don't say, "I'm a white, 29 year old Italian with red blood and one heart."

Seth wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Seth:

Probably not safe to try to predict what I say that way. I have a, er, different cultural background, so my cultural language toolbox is just not the same. It never even occurred to me to play that sort of a game. I think we all know how much this has gotten me into trouble in the past.

True that! It seems you're still playing a derailed gotcha game with 16Blue, but i'll blame that on your culture. :)

haha. I was right, it was just 2 toed Africans, not cannibals, that supplied the gocha.

Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image.

You do realize that sexual identity and gender are not purely appearance-based, yes? And that race is only purely appearance based when you take a very narrow definition of race that does not involve culture.

When I see a fair-skinned person who has taken on black american culture completely, be universally labeled as "black," then I will accept that culture is the foremost determinant of that designation.

LarryC wrote:
Demyx wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I don't know that any appearance factor should be a part of self-image.

You do realize that sexual identity and gender are not purely appearance-based, yes? And that race is only purely appearance based when you take a very narrow definition of race that does not involve culture.

When I see a fair-skinned person who has taken on black american culture completely, be universally labeled as "black," then I will accept that culture is the foremost determinant of that designation.

I have a white friend that's been called black by multiple black people because of his cultural traits. It's not universal, but it's not non-existent and universally the world still has a long way to go towards understanding and accurately discussing race.

LarryC wrote:

When I see a fair-skinned person who has taken on black american culture completely, be universally labeled as "black," then I will accept that culture is the foremost determinant of that designation.

1) You ignored my points about sexual orientation and gender.

2) Even if appearance is the foremost determinant of that designation that does not mean that culture has zero effect. A fair-skinned person who emulates black American culture is not called black but they will be looked down upon, mocked and called nasty epithets by many people who feel that black American culture is lesser.

3) You've completely derailed a discussion about privilege with a fantasy about a world where no one identifies by their race or gender (and I actually do not consider a world with no gender identification as ideal at all). If your only solution to the problem of privilege is for all straight white males to stop considering themselves straight, white or male then you're going to be waiting a very long time.

A more practical solution is to get a sufficient number of privileged people to recognize the problems encountered by less privileged people and to construct solutions addressing that inequality. For example, the Lily Ledbetter Act, which aims to eliminate income inequality between men and women.

Demyx wrote:

3) You've completely derailed a discussion about privilege with a fantasy about a world where no one identifies by their race or gender (and I actually do not consider a world with no gender identification as ideal at all). If your only solution to the problem of privilege is for all straight white males to stop considering themselves straight, white or male then you're going to be waiting a very long time.

I dunno, I think discussions like this can really only end with people trying their hardest to sound like the most humble and enlightened participant.

I think, to answer an earlier question, the role of people who are aware of the problem is to also be aware of when you can break down people's self-imposed blinders where it comes to the reality of this. You do this by showing run of the mill, daily examples. And I mean you have to show someone. It has to hit them where they live, not be some parable or third-hand story.

SixteenBlue:

If race is culture, then we should just remove the word and call it culture. Clearly, it's not, and as far as I can see, skin color is still the overwhelming criteria by which "black" people are classified. Many of those guys are more genetically "Caucasian" than "African," and they're still called "black" because their skin color is not fair.

I still don't see how it's important to self-image to include skin color. Culture, sure. I can respect someone who says, "I come from so-and-so location," as part of his or her self-image, because events and culture in that location really will affect who he or she is and how he or she thinks. How is it important to you to maintain your skin-color as part of your self-image? Why not shed your self-identity as a "Straight, White Male," (or whatever you are), except as part of the mask through which everyone else still sees you?

Demyx:

I don't see that as desirable in the long run because solutions that focus on the qualities in question only escalate and enforce the importance of that quality in the population, by necessity. If you get breaks when you can claim yourself as a "woman," your womanhood is ensconced as a permanent part of your workforce identity, until such law is repealed.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I dunno, I think discussions like this can really only end with people trying their hardest to sound like the most humble and enlightened participant.

So we shouldn't discuss this issue because many people sound smug when they discuss it? I don't like this argument here any more then when it comes up in discussions about the environment, etc.

Do you think it's not a real problem? And if it is a real problem, then do you have a better reason why people shouldn't discuss it than "it annoys me"?

I think, to answer an earlier question, the role of people who are aware of the problem is to also be aware of when you can break down people's self-imposed blinders where it comes to the reality of this. You do this by showing run of the mill, daily examples. And I mean you have to show someone. It has to hit them where they live, not be some parable or third-hand story.

If you're not a member of the oppressed group in question and you don't know anyone in the group in question, then it's going to be a third-hand story no matter what. Call me naive but I have a bit of faith that some people will be able to empathize with something that doesn't directly affect them. Not all people, but some.

Demyx:

3) You've completely derailed a discussion about privilege with a fantasy about a world where no one identifies by their race or gender (and I actually do not consider a world with no gender identification as ideal at all). If your only solution to the problem of privilege is for all straight white males to stop considering themselves straight, white or male then you're going to be waiting a very long time.

It's not about a fantasy world. If that's what you got, then you were reading it wrong. That is the goal. The immediate talking point is personal change to reach that goal - not everyone, just everyone here.

Asking people here to think about abandoning maleness, whiteness, and straightness as a personal choice towards a more idealized world seems to me to be worth talking about, and it is absolutely along the lines of "What should be done about this issue?" which is the point of this thread, no?

Demyx wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I dunno, I think discussions like this can really only end with people trying their hardest to sound like the most humble and enlightened participant.

So we shouldn't discuss this issue because many people sound smug when they discuss it? I don't like this argument here any more then when it comes up in discussions about the environment, etc.

Do you think it's not a real problem? And if it is a real problem, then do you have a better reason why people shouldn't discuss it than "it annoys me"?

I was making a joke, honest.

If you're not a member of the oppressed group in question and you don't know anyone in the group in question, then it's going to be a third-hand story no matter what. Call me naive but I have a bit of faith that some people will be able to empathize with something that doesn't directly affect them. Not all people, but some.

My main contention though is that people who can empathize decently aren't the folks that we're having to convince white male privilege exists. And I do agree that the opportunities will be rare, which is why watching for them will be important.

It's not about a fantasy world. If that's what you got, then you were reading it wrong. That is the goal. The immediate talking point is personal change to reach that goal - not everyone, just everyone here.

Asking people here to think about abandoning maleness, whiteness, and straightness as a personal choice towards a more idealized world seems to me to be worth talking about, and it is absolutely along the lines of "What should be done about this issue?" which is the point of this thread, no?

The fact that you think that you can abandon maleness is actually relevant to the thread because it is a stunning example of privilege. It doesn't matter if every male in the world abandons the notion of maleness and decides that gender is not important. They still won't be able to get pregnant, among other biological differences, and that means they will never know what it is like to be a woman, and they will never have the same insight into women's issues that women do. And men who think they have the same knowledge women do of women's problems is one of the major sources of sexism in the world.

What you are proposing is not addressing the problem, it's ignoring it.

EDIT: Bloo, sorry, I guess I had my outrage meter turned up too high because I didn't realize you were joking And you are right, many of the people who would be convinced by third-hand stories are already convinced, and the opportunities to discuss these matters with receptive folks who aren't convinced are all too rare.

Maybe there's another group in these discussions: the Lurker. The Lurker just sits there, watching this stuff play out, not nearly as convinced as the Talkers of which side is right. When the Talkers on one side are made to look like fools by the Talkers on the other side--or even when the Lurker just encounters an argument they had never seen before--the Lurker's mind can be changed. Ulairi had a really good point: you can be a well-traveled, well-read, well-educated person and still not have heard of this kind of stuff. Like he asked: "is this how you liberal arts guys actually talk to each other?" Or "I feel like you guys live in a completely different planet than I do."

edit: I should also mention something else--"All these articles do is get people, like me, defensive, and doesn't change my mind." It's something to keep in mind, that maybe the biggest audience is also the most turned off sometimes. Tone matters.

Of course, I think that applies to all kinds of topics, and kinda goes back to something the author mentioned, the polarizing effect of the word 'privilege'.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Maybe there's another group in these discussions: the Lurker. The Lurker just sits there, watching this stuff play out, not nearly as convinced as the Talkers of which side is right. When the Talkers on one side are made to look like fools by the Talkers on the other side--or even when the Lurker just encounters an argument they had never seen before--the Lurker's mind can be changed. Ulairi had a really good point: you can be a well-traveled, well-read, well-educated person and still not have heard of this kind of stuff. Like he asked: "is this how you liberal arts guys actually talk to each other?" Or "I feel like you guys live in a completely different planet than I do."

Sure, but I am strongly willing to bet that through their experience in life, they have already formed an opinion on if such a pervasive social force exists or not, and won't be swayed either way by a few anecdotes or a blog post. People may not call it "white male privilege" when they think about it, but when posed with the question "Do you think a white man is going to have an easier time getting an office job than a latino woman," they'll definitely have an opinion.

Demyx:

Not at all. That is a common talking point in your culture, and I recognize it. I agree that that is not constructive. Abandoning maleness as a personal self-image point doesn't mean that you no longer see your own dick, don't want to have it stroked, or assume that women are the same. It just means that you will no longer assign value to social mores about gender.

Example: if being male is not part of self-image, then the "femaleness" of pink skirts, bras, makeup, and whatever else becomes irrelevant to you as you are no longer male to yourself.

Likewise, just because we don't include "has a head" as part of our essential self-identity doesn't mean that we forget that we have heads. We will still wear helmets.

Ergo, we will not forget that we can't get pregnant, and that we don't have boobs; nor will we assume that neither of those differences is a big deal. From a dispassionate perspective, those are obviously very big deals.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demyx wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I dunno, I think discussions like this can really only end with people trying their hardest to sound like the most humble and enlightened participant.

So we shouldn't discuss this issue because many people sound smug when they discuss it? I don't like this argument here any more then when it comes up in discussions about the environment, etc.

Do you think it's not a real problem? And if it is a real problem, then do you have a better reason why people shouldn't discuss it than "it annoys me"?

I was making a joke, honest.

And to be fair, it's only the guy advocating some weird raceless, colorless Candyland as a realistic possibility that's scrambling for the Most Enlightened. Some of us just want to hate on MCA or viciously debate what pandering means.

If you're not a member of the oppressed group in question and you don't know anyone in the group in question, then it's going to be a third-hand story no matter what. Call me naive but I have a bit of faith that some people will be able to empathize with something that doesn't directly affect them. Not all people, but some.

My main contention though is that people who can empathize decently aren't the folks that we're having to convince white male privilege exists. And I do agree that the opportunities will be rare, which is why watching for them will be important.

And I can't imagine a situation where tact is more important. Justifiably or not (I trend to "not"), the concept of white privilege goes hand in hand with white guilt, especially among those newly familiar with it.

Seth wrote:

And I can't imagine a situation where tact is more important.

Yeah I think we're not taking advice on tact from you in this thread, Seth. Get out. OUUUUUTTT.

If you're aware that there are important differences between men and women, then you haven't abandoned maleness as part of your personal self-image.

EDIT: And yes, tact is an absolutely essential part of the equation that sadly many people, including myself, lack. Very few people like being told that they, or their society, is racist or sexist, especially if they are doing it accidentally, and it's the people who are being accidentally racist or sexist that are theoretically the most receptive to the message that they should change.

Demyx wrote:

If you're aware that there are important differences between men and women, then you haven't abandoned maleness as part of your personal self-image.

Disagree. Having a head is a fairly important difference - people who don't grow one tend to die fairly soon, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone who's seen a headless human that that individual is different. Yet having a head is normally not a part of self-image.