One man's mumblings..... I *am* a feminist AND... : comments.
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26 |
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
(no subject)
I have no intent of defining anything. To properly answer your essay would involve writing a research paper with all the quotes and statistics you seem to demand, and frankly, I've not the time to do that for a comment in a journal entry. Furthermore, it's doubtful it would make you change your mind in any way, which then seems like a bit of a waste of my time, no?
All I am saying is that the system is rotten, has been rotten, and there's no easy way of fixing it. But we white people do still benefit from it and it seems to be wise to acknowledge that if for nothing else than the actual verbal acknowledgement is a step toward a truly color-blind society. Speaking as a woman, it sure would be nice if white men ever got around to acknowledging that they do make more money and have more social status in general than women, instead of snarling at "feminists" and identifying as Angry White Men. You can't focus on the problem if you can't speak about it. Most white men choose not to. Unfortunately, silence won't make any of the problems go away.
(no subject)
Since you are making assertions about overdevelopment, underdevelopment, and upon-preying, the burden of definition rests on you. That's the way argument works. As I'm sure
I am no Angry White Male. I believe I am, if not a Modest White Male, at least a Peaceful White Male. I freely admit that I have benefitted from my race, sex, socio-economic status, and other things. I occasionally even feel guilty about it, until I consider that a) I also have worked very hard to get where I am in life; b) I personally treat people as kindly as I can, with as little regard to their skin color, ethnic or national background, sex or sexual orientation, wealth, education, religious beliefs, and hygiene as I can manage; and c) life is full of accidents of fortune that depend on none of those things.
I wholeheartedly agree that each of us should treated according to our merits, that we should have equality under the law, and that we should be civil to each other, if not nice. But when someone begins to suggest that there need to be set-asides or compensation or "justice," I will always ask, how much from whom to whom for how long? Until someone presents a convincing answer, I will remain unpersuaded.
Have a nice day! :-)
(no subject)
Regarding paragraph 3 - good for you. The world needs more mild-mannered white guys. However, treating people kindly (and do you do this consistently, or only on whim?) is generally not enough. What are you doing to rectify the problem? (Bear in mind I have no idea who you are.)
Are you aware that paragraph 5 (perhaps better called line 5) reads rather patronizingly? I would not expect that from someone who purports to be a kind, even-handed soul, and so I'm not certain how to read the tone of that bit. It's probably not important anyway.
(no subject)
That said, the stupid, angry, ignorant, and prejudiced dwell among us, and probably always will, and while I don't think that's an ideal situation, I also don't support attempting to forcibly change their beliefs, nor restrain their behavior before they inflict harm on the person or property of others. It seems to me that doing so will only harden those prejudices.
This is why, for example, I think "hate crimes" laws are a bad idea. An assault is an assault, battery is battery, and murder is murder, regardless of who the attacker and who the victim. Murder victims aren't any more dead because their attacker was prejudiced against them. Treating crimes against some people as somehow worse than others sets them aside as a "special" class, which is just going to piss off those who already hate them even more, and perhaps even create some resentment among those who otherwise would be favorably or neutrally inclined.
But, I digress. What do you propose should be done?
(no subject)
Failing that, who should pay? Well, I suppose we might start with those people still extant who directly profited from slavery, for example. If a corporation is a person, and a person must be responsible for actions he/she takes, or actions taken under the authority of that person, then we perhaps might undertake a strict accounting of Chase, or Bank of America, who bought, sold, lent money for, and insured slaves.
Hell, I don't know. But I do know that what has happened, and is happening today is criminal. When we shrug our shoulders and say, "Sucks to be them," and not do anything about it, we're accessories after the fact.
(no subject)
1 Admittedly, bad example.