Poster "shared" on facebook by an Asian-American female stating:
"Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about the improper use of email."
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1178176795608706/?type=3&theater
edited xxx =asian female
Thomas E Booth
This idiotic sentiment is as unreasonable as blaming Muslims for Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, "white men" are a significant minority of the population and we all need to be part of the solutions to the problems society faces. It is hard to see how attacking "white men" will encourage them to be part of the solution. That is against all human nature. Indeed, part of the reason that Trump is popular with some "white men" is because they are tired of being singled out and unfairly blamed for the actions of a few white men.
Exactly what problem in society is helped by singling out and targeting "white men?" Why am I any more responsible than xxx for society's problems?
xxx:
This is targeted at 'powerful white men' --specifically the do-nothing members of Congress.
Thomas E Booth
I still find this statement idiotic, pejorative, and counter-productive. There are women and other races that are "do-nothing members of Congress." There are plenty of powerful "white men" that want to solve problems and are not "do-nothing members of Congress."
The message should have targeted "the do-nothing members of Congress" instead of "powerful white men." Such a message would be more accurate and would avoid using "white men" pejoratively.This poster is inaccurate, a defamation of "white men" as a group, and unnecessarily disgusting. If one wants the help of "white men" generally and/or "powerful white men" specifically to help solve problems, it would be wise to stop attacking a whole group of people.
When people are under attack, they are usually not inclined to support their attackers. Put another way, accurately target your true foes and try to avoid inaccurately targeting a whole group that includes supporters as well as foes. If supporters are targeted along with foes, especially when it would have been EASY to target just the foes, some of those supporters may not stay supporters. What sense does this inaccurate targeting make?
xxx
Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women.
Thomas E Booth
Instead of responding to my comments in a reasoned way, and trying to explain what is wrong with my arguments, you have launched a fallacious ad hominem attack that is devoid of any intellectual merit or even content.
Thomas E Booth
A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"
Shouting "male privilege" is often a meaningless attack on males used when the attacker cannot supply convincing evidence for her/his assertions. It is a convenient ploy that is used instead of a rational discussion. In fact, it is often used specifically to shut down rational discussion.
For instance I received this comment recently:
// Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women. //
The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.
My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.
The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."
Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.
xxx
My, my. Someone is very defensive... There's no shouting here. Just quiet weeping..
"Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about the improper use of email."
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1178176795608706/?type=3&theater
edited xxx =asian female
Thomas E Booth
This idiotic sentiment is as unreasonable as blaming Muslims for Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, "white men" are a significant minority of the population and we all need to be part of the solutions to the problems society faces. It is hard to see how attacking "white men" will encourage them to be part of the solution. That is against all human nature. Indeed, part of the reason that Trump is popular with some "white men" is because they are tired of being singled out and unfairly blamed for the actions of a few white men.
Exactly what problem in society is helped by singling out and targeting "white men?" Why am I any more responsible than xxx for society's problems?
xxx:
This is targeted at 'powerful white men' --specifically the do-nothing members of Congress.
Thomas E Booth
I still find this statement idiotic, pejorative, and counter-productive. There are women and other races that are "do-nothing members of Congress." There are plenty of powerful "white men" that want to solve problems and are not "do-nothing members of Congress."
The message should have targeted "the do-nothing members of Congress" instead of "powerful white men." Such a message would be more accurate and would avoid using "white men" pejoratively.This poster is inaccurate, a defamation of "white men" as a group, and unnecessarily disgusting. If one wants the help of "white men" generally and/or "powerful white men" specifically to help solve problems, it would be wise to stop attacking a whole group of people.
When people are under attack, they are usually not inclined to support their attackers. Put another way, accurately target your true foes and try to avoid inaccurately targeting a whole group that includes supporters as well as foes. If supporters are targeted along with foes, especially when it would have been EASY to target just the foes, some of those supporters may not stay supporters. What sense does this inaccurate targeting make?
xxx
Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women.
Thomas E Booth
Instead of responding to my comments in a reasoned way, and trying to explain what is wrong with my arguments, you have launched a fallacious ad hominem attack that is devoid of any intellectual merit or even content.
Thomas E Booth
A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"
Shouting "male privilege" is often a meaningless attack on males used when the attacker cannot supply convincing evidence for her/his assertions. It is a convenient ploy that is used instead of a rational discussion. In fact, it is often used specifically to shut down rational discussion.
For instance I received this comment recently:
// Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women. //
The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.
My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.
The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."
Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.
xxx
My, my. Someone is very defensive... There's no shouting here. Just quiet weeping..
No comments:
Post a Comment