Guilt by Association and Victimhood by Association

This post is in response to the facebook conversation with the Asian-American woman linked here:


http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html


This woman (and her husband) seemed either incapable or unwilling to have a rational discussion. Continuing the discussion would have been as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing. (For those not familiar with the idiom: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”) For those willing to engage their brains a bit, let's consider her unsupported accusations.

The problem identified had to do with police and black men. But, this Asian-American female (xxx) almost effortlessly (how many words did it take?)  conflates problems of black Americans with problems of women.  (Note that xxx does not respond to my question about why white men are any more responsible than Asian females for the interactions of  police and black men.)  This conflation attempts to acquire additional victimhood status by coupling women's issues with black racial issues as if they were similar and commensurate problems. They are both problems, but they are not commensurate and there are far more differences than similarities.Women's issues need to be judged on their own merits, without attempting to couple them to black racial issues. This woman's comments seem to have the primary intent of trying to appropriate additional victimhood status by association with black racial problems. Otherwise, why immediately try and tie the two together in this instance?

Inasmuch as most Americans consider the slavery that existed in the past and the racism that persists to this day as the most reprehensible part of our history, associating women's issues with racism tends to put them on the same level. Although this conflation may be positive for women's issues, the conflation tends to diminish the problem of racism by putting it on the same level as women's issues. Perhaps this is the reason that it is quite common for women's groups to conflate sexism and racism but far less common (rare?) for racial justice groups to put women's issues and racism on the same level?

There are some very serious women's problems to deal with. But the women's movement also is spending an inordinate amount of effort on relatively trivial issues; the racial justice movement is not.  Unjustified killings of black males and unequal incarceration and sentencing for the same crime are a much more serious issue than "trigger warnings," "safe spaces," and girlie calendars.

Black males seem to have far more problematic interactions with police than females of any race and males of any non-black race. If some kind of "privilege" claim is necessary, the "privilege" in this case is "non-black privilege." It certainly has nothing to do with "male privilege" because males of any race seem to have more problematic interactions with police than females of the corresponding race. So, "female privilege" might be appropriate in this instance, but not "male privilege." Does anybody have any evidence that Asian males have more problematic interactions with police than white males? Why isn't this "Asian privilege?" Does anybody doubt that Asian females have the fewest problematic interactions with police? In this instance, why isn't this "Asian female privilege?"

Rather than engage in a rational conversation, this woman assigned guilt by association to me and victimhood by association to herself.

The Mainstream versus the Lunatic Fringe

President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of a "lunatic fringe." Although it would be comforting to believe that the couple in the previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html

were part of the lunatic fringe, this is not the case.

I have known this couple for many years.  Both are very intelligent and well-educated.  Moreover, these are nice people that one would not hesitate to invite into his home. They may not be in the center of the movement spewing "white male privilege," but they are certainly not on the fringe.

One can question this couple's rationality, logic, and fairness on the issues. One can note that their inclination is to verbally attack rather than verbally convince, or even discuss rationally. Any questioning of the accuracy of their statements is deflected not by explaining their statements, but rather, by verbally attacking the questioner for having the temerity to question their statements. As a stretch, one might even call some of their statements lunacy, but this couple is definitely not part of the "lunatic fringe."

My guess is at least a quarter of the folks spewing "white male privilege" are similar. They do not want a conversation about problems. They simply want to verbally attack anybody that does not share their views. As I will note in a forthcoming post, "white male privilege" has become such a mantra for many of these people that the term is used when it applies and when it does not apply almost indiscriminately.

Asian American Female's White Husband's Contribution

I gave the Asian American woman's comments. Her white husband was a party to the  facebook interaction as well. Her comments are given here:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/poster-shared-on-facebook-by-asian.html




His comments are reasonably similar to hers in that he feels no need to justify the poster's attack specifically and solely on white males. The primary difference is that he put a little more thought and text into his attack. Still, he manages to call me a racist and a sexist in the space of a few sentences.

He seems not to have actually read my response carefully enough to realize that I had answered the question that he asked and was not denying that white people had it much easier than black people in America. That is, I agreed with him on the race issue. Logically, that should have made me solely more sexist but not more racist than yyy? But the racist charge was not withdrawn and he continued attacking me on racism despite the fact that I indicated no disagreement with him on that issue.


xxx=Asian American woman
yyy=white husband

yyy:
Tom, you're denying there's such a thing as white male privilege? Or that you, as a member of that group have never benefited from being a member?

Ok so every black man I've ever talked to about this has to deal with police harassment all the time. 

I just read another thread in Reddit where it appears women cannot walk down a street without being harassed, ogled, or stared at. 

I was talking to a female priest who was sitting with a female Imam… oh wait they aren't allowed to be religious leaders. Female rabbis are allowed In a few sects but only starting in 1930's I think. 

I could go on. Denying WMP kinda makes you a little tiny bit sorta just a tad racist and sexist.



Thomas E Booth:
 Racism is a huge problem is this country and xxx is no less responsible than I. So, singling out white males is not appropriate. Progress on racism will happen faster when all people come together to try to find solutions. Singling out white males for defamation is neither fair nor a reasonable approach to solving racism. For some people, attacking white males seems to have attained higher priority than working with them to help solve racism. Such people are impeding progress not promoting progress.

Historically, it was overwhelmingly white Union male volunterers who died in the hundreds of thousands in the Civil War that freed the 4 million slaves. There is no remotely similar action by women of any color.

It is not proper for me to take credit for what white Union male volunterers did in the Civil War. But neither is it proper to blame me for what other white men did that was not so honorable.

To answer one of your questions, I do not deny that there is a signifcant advantage to being asian or white as opposed to black. This needs to change.

As far as "male privilege," I have already stated the most important reasons that I preferred the set of advantages my sisters had over the set I had. (There are other reasons of lesser importance as well.) People will differ on which set of advantages is more desireable. 

Your comments were worthwhile in general. But, calling me a racist and a sexist says volumes about your intolerance for people that do not agree with you on everything.

There are necessary laws and regulations to ensure fair treatment of women, but these laws and regulations have sometimes been abused. In particular, the government should not be used for the tyrannical purpose of letting women deny men the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, any legitimate reasons for denying the pursuit of happiness should at least be honestly stated. Occasionally, the reasons seem unfair, illegitimate, tyrannical, and dishonest as well.

For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment is a tyrannical attempt to control what he sees, not what she sees. 

The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as "sexual harassment" and treats the calendar as if it is being displayed with the intent of harassing women. Inasmuch as men have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of women, suggesting that men display these calendars in order to harass women is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because men like the calendars. That fact that men and women appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is women's intolerance of diversity and not men's intent to harass women.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success (about swimsuit calendars) , one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of the intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for harassment, for which men are not responsible.


yyy:
Hm... OK Tom. Go find a man of color and ask him if he's ever been harassed or subjected to overt racism. Then go ask one woman if she's ever been subjected to unwanted attention from men or subjected to sexism. 

The best way to learn about WMP is to talk to our non-WMP neighbors. One WMP cannot convince another that this is real.

yyy:
This is the end of my participation in this thread.

Facebook Conversation with Asian-American Female

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..

Society's Lopsided Focus on Women

Society's Lopsided Focus on Women 

In my lifetime (and perhaps before), the society almost always focused on how change has or will affect women. Typically, how men are or will be affected, if considered at all, is considered only after the media has been saturated with the affects upon women.

When I entered the University of California in 1969 there were many more men on campus than women. The society was obsessed with addressing this imbalance via "affirmative action" and recruitment of women. There was no discussion about how this imbalance might be negatively affecting men.

Today, with most colleges having far more women than men, the media has probably spent more time and effort addressing how this imbalance is negatively affecting women than how the imbalance negatively affects men.

There seems to be a huge focus on the dating pool for women. When things were reversed in 1969 there was perhaps not even a single article bemoaning the dating pool for men. In 1969 nobody seemed concerned that the scarcity of women meant that women controlled the dating culture on campus. Now that there is a scarcity of men on campus and men control the dating culture, this is apparently a huge crisis deserving of immense media and societal attention. Why now and not in 1969?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

"Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said."

What kind of nonsense is this?  So, I was "victimized" by women at UC Berkeley because the women controlled the dating culture in days of yore? It is not a crime to have a male perspective on dating and there are no "victims" involved. Dating is a free choice. A man is not responsible  for how women choose to behave in the presence of an  imbalance. The fact that a man's dating preference is different than what many women would like does not mean that there is anything wrong with his dating preference.

http://web.nccu.edu/campus/echo/archive9-0708/c-ratio.html
http://time.com/money/4072951/college-gender-ratios-dating-hook-up-culture/