I never observed any male privilege. I gained female privilege and I love it. I love that society is more kind to me. Male bodied people are considered expendable by society.

Hi, AnnMarie

Wow, I'm actually amazed that there are people who seem to think somewhat similarly to me.
*･゜ﾟ･*:.｡..｡.:*･'(*ﾟ▽ﾟ*)'･*:.｡. .｡.:*･゜ﾟ･*

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.

Yes... it is much easier and many ways more profitable to battle against a perceived system than an individual. The former is seen as noble, and the latter vindictive. Moreover, it is much easier to gather supporters against a system than individuals.

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias.

I could not agree more. I was a child when I met my first women's rights activist, and was very I was hurt and confused by the vitriol she flung at me. I could not understand why I, just by being born male, should seem so evil and hurtful to her. I also could not understand many of the concepts I was being accused of. What I did know for certain was that I'd never seen nor encountered, let alone brought about any of the situations brought up as examples of the wrongs I supposedly was committing every day.

(Even though a child I felt I saw flaws in her logic, but had luckily learnt by then that when passion is involved trying to reason or ask questions only makes things worse.)

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers.

Yes... In my experience just about any political group tends to categorize those not willing to join as either traitors or enemies.

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.

Moreover, not all of it may be just cultural. I've also heard it argued that for example the extreme risk-taking by young males may even have some biological roots. According to the theory, since all species are perpetuated by females, it is advantageous in the wild to cull the slowest, weakest and least agile males.

If so, couldn't other parts of male behavior also be affected by instinct?

I myself could not understand much of what the boys my age reveled in. But then, I'm transgender—and that difference in itself seems significant to me. If what makes me different is a result of biology rather than choice, then doesn't that suggest that some male behavior and thought patterns are also governed by biology rather than choice? To me personally, denial of the possibility would feel very uncomfortable, since it would also suggest that I could stop being transgender just by choosing to do so.

With this in mind, could it not be that when men engage in risk-taking, they are competing against other males? Given that we live in various civilizations, rather than battles to death this may be sublimated into other forms. If so, might not including women in these competitions feel instinctually wrong to them?

So—I wonder. Where is the system? What is it's definition? If it does exist, who engineered it, and when? What is it's purpose?

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.

This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.

Yes. That hurts. I myself did not give a thought about skin color until I was put in a school run by American missionaries. Until then, it was like:

I get dark in the summer.
Some of my friends get darker.
Some just burn.
Some are dark all year around.

Then, all of as sudden my new teachers were telling me that "Our ancestors mistreated the really dark ones. They were our slaves, and we were their masters. Thus we must now atone those ancestors' sins."

When I asked my parents about it, they calmly told me that none of my ancestors had ever owned slaves. Judging from history, some of my ancestors probably were slaves, and were only emancipated about four years before their counterparts in America were. Even so, the teachers succeeded in installing a bias in me that I've never been able to completely shed.

That is one of the things that taught me to distrust any agenda, especially if it is presented in a way that provokes emotion.

Anyway, as you also mentioned, online discussion is rather unlikely to change anyone's established opinion. Actually any discussion anywhere is unlikely to do so. This is why I feel it pays to be very cautious before accepting anything as absolute, incontrovertible truth.

After all, once we've decided something is right, and something else is wrong, we tend to dismiss any other possibilities. The longer we've held our beliefs the greater the cost for changing our minds becomes. When they are challenged we feel like we stand to lose all the time, passion and effort we've put into bolstering whatever it is that we believe in.

That's probably also why the Jesuits could so confidently claim that once they'd taught someone you could take the child away from the church, but never the church away from the child.

I'm with you on it.

Are there some who are just plain old jerks to women?  Absolutely!  But that doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy against women that affects everyone everywhere.

As for the mansplaining thing, that is a cultural protective instinct sort of thing.  I think it's cute, and then I typically stomp the guy doing it by showing that I know far more than he does in most cases.  (gun shops and auto parts stores are a wonderful place to do this)

Quote from: AnnMarie2017 on February 28, 2018, 07:20:14 PM
I've made it a rule not to discuss politics on-line anymore. In my experience, people's minds are rarely swayed by argument; and hurt feelings and outrage seem to be common.

This is a subject many women feel passionately about. I appreciate that; I even think I understand why, and sympathize. Nevertheless, passion and pain do not make truth; indeed, more often they make lies and chaos.

The idea of there being a "system" of male privilege is as fallacious as the idea that there is a health care "system" that can be reformed. In both cases, there simply is no "system." A true system is intentionally created to perform a set of tasks; what is being here called a system is merely a conceptual frame superimposed upon observed phenomena for which there is no demonstrable motivating force or unifying principle -- but these things are *assumed* to exist, in the act of calling them a "system." By calling them a "system," motive is *assumed* without being proven, and then the "system" is attacked on that basis.

In addition, perception is selective. In the case of people who have been wounded, it is especially selective. True objectivity is impossible to begin with; and the more emotionally involved the observer is, the more likely their observations will be tainted with confirmation bias. One of the less subtle examples of this is the fact that, in discussions of male privilege, the reality of female privilege is almost always completely ignored.

Furthermore, it is never acknowledged that "privilege" is about preference for things of value, and value is relative. Early in the history of feminism, women who agitated for equality in career potential were aghast that a number of their female contemporaries simply did not value what they were fighting for and were happy and content to stay at home and be homemakers, wives and mothers. I remember that there was some resentment toward these women, as though they were "undermining the cause." But it was simply a question of value. If you see going to work every day and slogging it out with competitors, working for an unpleasant boss or company, is not worth the money or the sacrifices you would have to make for them, then you might rather pity your husband than envy him. For such a woman, it is a non sequitur to cast her husband's preferences as "privilege." Preference for a detriment is not "privilege."

What's really going on with so-called male privilege is cultural, and is too deep to be reformed from the top-down. If you try to reform it from the top-down, you will not create: you will destroy. You do not make people better by forcing them to be good; you make people better by inspiring them to be good. Laws, rules, public disapproval -- these things merely force bad behavior underground, where it festers until it explodes and does even more damage.

There's a beautiful line in the Melanie Griffith film, "A Stranger Among Us" (1982), in which Griffith plays a policewoman who goes undercover in a Hasidic community. As you can imagine, culture shock, on both sides, is a major component of the plot. There is a conversation between Griffith's character, Emily, and Mia Sara's, Leah, the grown daughter of the community's rabbi, that ends like this:

Emily: What do you want to be when you grow up, Leah?
Leah: A wife, a mother.
Emily: That's it?
Leah: But, Emily, what could be more important?

Like it or not, convenient or not, this is a valid point of view, and it has its own beauty. To a woman with these values, discussions of male privilege are meaningless, even false. The point I'm making is, whether male privilege exists or not, is a problem or not, depends on what you value, and what you value is a subjective choice, not an objective fact.

As it is used, "male privilege" is a thought-weapon; and, like accusations of "racism," regardless of the user's individual intent, is used to cow males, to make them introspect, hesitate, yield ... all to assuage a sense of guilt imposed upon them by their accusers. Just as White people have been made afraid to act and speak in venues where Black people are concerned, now males are being made afraid to act and speak in venues where women are concerned.

This is a poisonous, destructive meme. Unfortunately, I do not think it will go away without first causing a great deal more conflict, destruction and pain.

EDIT: I just had a "Eureka!" moment. I think I saw something about the etiology of this phenomenon. I'll just throw it out there.

There's another line in the film, in a conversation between Emily and Ariel, the rabbi's son, in which he comments that the Kabbalah says that women are on a higher spiritual plane than men. Now, before the feminists start crying that I'm putting women on a pedestal ... that's not the point. The point is the relationship between form and function.

Some people believe gender is not innate; some people believe it is, but gender roles are culturally determined, artificial and relative. But if gender *is* innate, and if there is purpose to our existence, then it must follow that there are certain aspects of gender roles that are also innate and deeper than culture.

Throughout recorded history, men, the gender with political power, has found inspiration in woman. Before recorded history, women were the civilizing force for mankind. Desire for woman motivates man.

As I mentioned, you do not make people better by forcing them to be good, but by inspiring them to be good. The alternatives are force and desire: male power and female allure. We women are the inspiration, and, to be the inspiration, we must be weak, relative to males. Goodness, spiritual becoming, must be freely chosen; and, this can only occur in the absence of threat. By being weaker, we become vessels of transformation for man.

The flip-side of this are the problems mentioned in this thread: being overshadowed, feeling threatened in public venues, being disregarded and dismissed ... These things are possible because of our role in the spiritual progress of mankind. Man chooses to abuse our weakness in pursuit of power, or to use our weakness as a means of his own spiritual advancement.

This is our gift, and our burden. The two are inextricably intertwined. You cannot have one without the other. By trying to unravel this relationship, feminism is unraveling the cords that hold the human race together on its path to enlightenment.

While it is clear to me that men and women enjoy different advantages in our society, and that they end up as a whole much more positive for the safety of men (to the point where men hardly ever consider safety in most places),

I think this is a brilliant take-down of what appear to me as many flaws in modern social thought.  Thanks for sharing AnnMarie.

Quote from: Colleen_definitely on March 01, 2018, 07:44:57 AM
I'm with you on it.

Are there some who are just plain old jerks to women?  Absolutely!  But that doesn't mean it's some grand conspiracy against women that affects everyone everywhere.

As for the mansplaining thing, that is a cultural protective instinct sort of thing.  I think it's cute, and then I typically stomp the guy doing it by showing that I know far more than he does in most cases.  (gun shops and auto parts stores are a wonderful place to do this)

I gotta be clear. The patriarchy is not a conspiracy. It's a long calcified series of social systems. There is no shadowy cabal or Council of Patriarchs running it. It's just people, most of whom are unaware of what they're perpetuating.

Take rape culture. It's not a mandate. It's a thousand small messages telling men they are entitled to sex, and just as many to women telling us this is how it is. It's locker room talk and boys will be boys. It's Han Solo "stealing" a kiss from Leia. It's telling girls that minor acts of violence means a boy likes her. It's a culture of silence surrounding abusers in power. It's asking what she was wearing and what signals she was giving off.  These are all small bits of cultural detritus, garbage memes, that have stuck around because they are advantageous to a group that has been in, and continues to be in, social power. And up it goes, rape culture as a whole is one fragment of the thing that is the patriarchy.

This all goes for white supremacy, cissexism, heteronormativity, enculturated Christianity. There are bad actors that want all of these systems in place, but they are kept in place largely by unaware beneficiaries.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote from: Tamika Olivia on March 01, 2018, 08:56:57 AM
I gotta be clear. The patriarchy is not a conspiracy. It's a long calcified series of social systems. There is no shadowy cabal or Council of Patriarchs running it. It's just people, most of whom are unaware of what they're perpetuating.

Awesome description!

And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .

Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.   

Quote from: Kylo on March 01, 2018, 10:42:37 PM
And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .

Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.

There!  Another "Male" telling us this and that, Ha!

In inverted commas, eh?

I haven't experienced this yet do to i am still coming out...
But friends i have had whether they be L.G.B.T. or Q
Have had issues in general.
I mean we live in such a close minded world there is prejudice to every degree...
I mean someone can literally clock you as negative for sharing a harmless
post on facebook involving animal crossing bridges....
As for "male" privledge i am sure some people do deal with its loss.
If only the world realized that we are all capable of the same things!
And that inherently we have the same core desires and insecurities.

Best of luck though to anyone going through this...

Quote from: Kylo on March 01, 2018, 10:42:37 PM
And what of the women who actually prefer forward and dominant men? Plenty of them on these boards too. Are you one of those who likes to tell other women what they should and shouldn't like because you know best? Good luck with that. . .

Don't forget the rise of black supremacy (yes, it exists and it's just as grotesque where you find it), and that of Islam, which when all is said and done makes Christianity look like a picnic for women compared.

I'm honestly not sure what your points are. Preference in partners is such small beans.  I could be the subbiest sub that ever needed a dom, and I could still look out and see that the patriarchy is a problem. Both for me and for women who don't want dominant and forward partners.

Black supremacy is a smokescreen that white people use to scare each other. Simply because there is no there there. There are no power structures keeping "black supremacy" endemic to the system, and no power brokers with the power to put such a system in place. It's like comparing the threat of vampires to that of assault weapons. White supremacy is endemic to the system and is what needs to be dismantled.

And honestly, same with Islam. There is no serious power to Islam in the global West. Even if it was as scary as you say, and it largely ain't, there's no power to it here. It's a boogeyman.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

You need to open your eyes and look a little closer at these things. Sounds like you're well and truly entrenched and invested in a belief that men, being white, and being of the West is the absolute root of all other problems out there. You're wrong. Not only wrong, but misinforming others.

I suppose by your standards, what's happening to whites in South Africa right now isn't terrible or somehow "deserved". A racist is a racist, no matter what color they come in - you don't get to excuse them because they're not white and keep your moral high ground. And I suppose women being treated like chattel in Islamic countries isn't a greater problem for them than anything women face over here, is it. Or that the west isn't turning a blind eye to the culture clash in Sweden and Germany that means thousands of women recently sexually assaulted by migrants from countries with Islamic cultures is largely ignored (or western women encouraged to cover up like Islamic women) because those authorities are afraid of being seen as "racist" rather than defending the freedom and rights of their own women not to be molested.

I am sick of hearing how "whiteness is the problem" or the "west is evil" from people who will conveniently omit the other problems and other sources of trouble facing us at this time. If you think Islam isn't a problem you probably live quite sheltered from it - I don't expect you'd want to live in an Islamic country as a woman, either, would you? Or perhaps the Democratic Republic of the Congo would suit you better? White people blaming their own countries and color for all the ills of the world appears to be currently fashionable, but obviously misplaced, when those countries are so much better than some and people are literally dying to get into them. They are not the Congo where supposedly forty-eight women get raped every hour, they are not Saudi Arabia where a woman can't the leave the country without a man's permission, they are not Yemen where there's no age of consent, they are not Egypt where FGM is hugely popular, they aren't Honduras where women's protection is abysmal. But I suppose these countries all do what they do right now because The White Man is somehow making them do it, and they have no agency of their own to control their own affairs? This is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations: anyone but white or western people can be excused from their actions because a certain type of white person actually believes non-whites "can't help it", or that by some magic the existence of white people has removed every drop of the agency of non-white countries to improve their situation (despite the fact there are plenty of non-white countries that have). This is arrogance of the highest order.

Tell me: if "white supremacy is endemic to the system and needs to be dismantled" why it is that comparably insular cultures and countries like China, Korea and Japan face the same issues socially regards gender roles and sexism, and China faces the same issues regards their Islamic communities when "white supremacy" has practically nothing whatsoever to do with their internal affairs presently. If anything, they have their own forms of racial supremacy which are alive and well in their societies. Could it possibly be that sexism has its roots in biological realities and isn't some invention of the White Devil, and that Islam generally finds it difficult to live peacefully alongside other cultures wherever it finds itself compared to the other major religions? Because there's certainly plenty of evidence of the latter in places with minimal western influence.

But do explain. I'd love to know how whiteness and white supremacy is responsible for China's similar problems, both historically and presently. Or Japan's, who remained consistently closed off to white influence until the early part of last century, and even then only took practical western knowledge rather than cultural onboard, and remains somewhat xenophobic and isolationist in cultural outlook to this day.

Don't give me that nonsense about claiming black supremacy doesn't exist or is made up by white people. There are plenty of black commentators and white commentators alike online spewing hate for each other, plain as day - you can go and find them any time you like to verify. And the black ones are just as awful. There are indeed black organizations run by black people that are supremacist, but I don't suppose you've bothered to look into them? And the white ones have more power by default? No, they don't, because currently there is plenty of vilification and censorship and outrage aimed toward the white ones, but almost none toward the black ones. You can be a racist (in public) and get away with it if you're not white in this current climate of fashionable "white guilt".

If you lived where I do you'd be well aware that the authorities in the UK and Europe consider Muslims something of a protected class, and have slowly but surely been allowing Islam more and more accommodation and leverage and are terrified of offending them while the press tends to inform as little about the culture clash or religiously and culturally motivated crimes taking place as it possibly can. Since I don't particularly want women to need male guardians to go out when anywhere near an Islamic "area", or to cover themselves up like Islamic women to avoid harassment or rape (Google it in relation to Germany, the authorities there have now started telling German women and girls to cover up to avoid being attacked by refugees), I consider what's happening here in Europe to be a little more than a "bogeyman". I know women personally who've been affected and harmed by these things, and I can see the problems and tensions developing in my own country year by year with my own eyes. To see you dismiss them so flippantly and presumptuously is infuriating.     

So, like, my mouth hurts from having all those words put into it. I need to go to work, so I don't have time for a point by point discussion right now, but I will address once I have time tonight.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I look forward to it.

So for me it looks like men in general are problem. If you leave men without proper moral, respect training and education they behave like animals toward women. You can see it in some cultures like Islamic countries. So is it pure maleness which is a problem, does it mean that men have no inherent sense of compassion and respect, so they have to be trained like in western countries?

Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 11:12:07 AM
Oh no, y'all, that isn't privilege or power. It's old school sexism and objectification in the guise of power. Disparities in the heights of power, inequality in pay, reproductive rights, epidemic physical and sexual violence against women... none of these are solved by using feminine wiles to entrance men. That's a squirt gun that's being passed off as a nuke.

Moreover, that line of thinking is often exploited by men to justify horrible treatment of women.

     I find this line of thought at least within the context of my own marriage to be completely inaccurate.  My wife got just about whatever she wanted.  I loved and respected her and truly wanted for her to be happy and if there was something I could do to facilitate that, then I would. 

     Sometimes I would get my way, but I always considered her point of view even if I disagreed with it.  When I did wind up getting my way (not so often) she might complain that I wasn't validating her and valuing her opinion.  My thought here is that valuing her opinion doesn't mean simply agreeing to it, but in listening to it and giving it the opportunity to influence me (which it usually did).  If it didn't sway my opinion it didn't mean that I didn't value it, just that after weighing all of the issues I still held to my original conviction.

           Julie

Quote from: Tamika Olivia on February 28, 2018, 08:40:47 PM
As for the idea that discussions of misogyny and racism are used as silencing tacitics... I find the notion toxic. Those in positions of privilege should be made aware of their participation in structures of oppression.

I recently saw an interview where Morgan Freeman said that the way to get rid of racism was to stop talking about it.  Drawing attention to it just encourages group think and is itself divisive  There is a whole generation of young people that believe there is racism because it has been sold to them.

So, if privilege (of whatever sort you want to talk about) is indeed a system, who runs it?  Who is the leader?  Who makes the rules and arbitrates any conflicts?  Doesn't it make more sense that it is an emergent phenomena based on societal values and stereotypes?  If the stereotypes and values are changed the phenomena would as well.  Don't forget that stereotypes don't happen in a vacuum, there has to be some statistically relevant behavior upon which they are based even if they are generally untrue.

I also agree with Zirconia about how we as humans make shortcuts about how we interact with people (probably a big part of the synthesis of sterotypes).  I am sure women are as guilty as men of this in many regards.  It is the responsibility of each of us to interact with other humans on an individual vs group basis if we want to move away from the ravages of the effects of privilege in whatever form they may take.

            Julie

Any doubt I may have had about male priveledge, or the loss of, went out the window the first time a guy thought it was ok to put his hands on me and physically move me out of his way. Not shoving, he was being "polite" by moving me, by placing his hands on my shoulders and "guiding" me to where HE wanted me. I was so stunned, I didn't have words.

IKR?

I'm usually pretty neutral and even keeled, but seriously in the world we live in this type of behavior is not considered harassment or generally frowned upon. He moved me as if I was an object. Because that's what I was. And this was someone who knew me well before I transitioned. I have had similar incidents with perfect strangers. Just seems odd. Why don't you pinch my butt while you're at it?

Now i am 5-10 and have gained a bit of weight since switching to injections (damn cravings!!!!!) and am now 155-160#. Certainly not heavy at a size 8 but also not a tiny little thing either.

I have also been talked over though I am usually the most senior person in the room by title (upper middle management), so the title prevents a lot of that, and at a company that is highly regarded for its support of women and minorities including LGBT.

Meanwhile my best male friend now orders for me because of his man-sense about how to treat a lady. I think some of what is perceived as male privilege is really the intersection of attempted or poorly executed chivalry meeting 2018 expectations of equality meeting women's lib and not quite yet finding the exact right landing spot. But some of it is absolutely a feeling of power and superiority. I am weaker therefore I am less is how I feel like I am perceived and treated in these circumstances.

Quote from: Kylo on March 02, 2018, 06:23:14 AM
You need to open your eyes and look a little closer at these things. Sounds like you're well and truly entrenched and invested in a belief that men, being white, and being of the West is the absolute root of all other problems out there. You're wrong. Not only wrong, but misinforming others.

I suppose by your standards, what's happening to whites in South Africa right now isn't terrible or somehow "deserved". A racist is a racist, no matter what color they come in - you don't get to excuse them because they're not white and keep your moral high ground. And I suppose women being treated like chattel in Islamic countries isn't a greater problem for them than anything women face over here, is it. Or that the west isn't turning a blind eye to the culture clash in Sweden and Germany that means thousands of women recently sexually assaulted by migrants from countries with Islamic cultures is largely ignored (or western women encouraged to cover up like Islamic women) because those authorities are afraid of being seen as "racist" rather than defending the freedom and rights of their own women not to be molested.

I am sick of hearing how "whiteness is the problem" or the "west is evil" from people who will conveniently omit the other problems and other sources of trouble facing us at this time. If you think Islam isn't a problem you probably live quite sheltered from it - I don't expect you'd want to live in an Islamic country as a woman, either, would you? Or perhaps the Democratic Republic of the Congo would suit you better? White people blaming their own countries and color for all the ills of the world appears to be currently fashionable, but obviously misplaced, when those countries are so much better than some and people are literally dying to get into them. They are not the Congo where supposedly forty-eight women get raped every hour, they are not Saudi Arabia where a woman can't the leave the country without a man's permission, they are not Yemen where there's no age of consent, they are not Egypt where FGM is hugely popular, they aren't Honduras where women's protection is abysmal. But I suppose these countries all do what they do right now because The White Man is somehow making them do it, and they have no agency of their own to control their own affairs? This is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations: anyone but white or western people can be excused from their actions because a certain type of white person actually believes non-whites "can't help it", or that by some magic the existence of white people has removed every drop of the agency of non-white countries to improve their situation (despite the fact there are plenty of non-white countries that have). This is arrogance of the highest order.

Tell me: if "white supremacy is endemic to the system and needs to be dismantled" why it is that comparably insular cultures and countries like China, Korea and Japan face the same issues socially regards gender roles and sexism, and China faces the same issues regards their Islamic communities when "white supremacy" has practically nothing whatsoever to do with their internal affairs presently. If anything, they have their own forms of racial supremacy which are alive and well in their societies. Could it possibly be that sexism has its roots in biological realities and isn't some invention of the White Devil, and that Islam generally finds it difficult to live peacefully alongside other cultures wherever it finds itself compared to the other major religions? Because there's certainly plenty of evidence of the latter in places with minimal western influence.

But do explain. I'd love to know how whiteness and white supremacy is responsible for China's similar problems, both historically and presently. Or Japan's, who remained consistently closed off to white influence until the early part of last century, and even then only took practical western knowledge rather than cultural onboard, and remains somewhat xenophobic and isolationist in cultural outlook to this day.

Don't give me that nonsense about claiming black supremacy doesn't exist or is made up by white people. There are plenty of black commentators and white commentators alike online spewing hate for each other, plain as day - you can go and find them any time you like to verify. And the black ones are just as awful. There are indeed black organizations run by black people that are supremacist, but I don't suppose you've bothered to look into them? And the white ones have more power by default? No, they don't, because currently there is plenty of vilification and censorship and outrage aimed toward the white ones, but almost none toward the black ones. You can be a racist (in public) and get away with it if you're not white in this current climate of fashionable "white guilt".

If you lived where I do you'd be well aware that the authorities in the UK and Europe consider Muslims something of a protected class, and have slowly but surely been allowing Islam more and more accommodation and leverage and are terrified of offending them while the press tends to inform as little about the culture clash as possible. Since I don't particularly want women to need male guardians to go out when anywhere near an Islamic "area", or to cover themselves up like Islamic women to avoid harassment or rape, I consider what's happening here in Europe to be a little more than a "bogeyman". I know women personally who've been affected and harmed by these things, and I can see the problems and tensions developing in my own country year by year with my own eyes. To see you dismiss them so flippantly and presumptuously is infuriating.   

Alright, so I'm going to do this, but let's get some preliminaries out of the way first. One, I'm going to assume any mistakes or misrepresentations of my opinions were non-malicious. I say what I mean, and there is no license granted to extrapolate other positions beyond what I've said. I extend this courtesy once, so if you misstate my positions again, I'll assume malice and discontinue the discussion. Second, I'm writing on a phone. This means that I'm going back and forth between your post and my response. I'll try to keep roughly to the flow of your post, but please forgive any deviation or grammar errors. Third, I am an American. I will largely be arguing about how these structures manifest in the US. I simply do not have the grounding to discuss these structures as they may exist outside of the US, but when possible I will try to respond to points you've raised. I believe those are the necessary caveats.

The first paragraph contains the largest misconception. I do not believe that white, Western, men are the root of all problems. That position is asinine on the face.  I do believe that structures such as patriarchy and white supremacy do cause problems, but that is distinct from the idea that men or white people are causing all the problems. These are structures that exist beyond any one person or group of people. Any given man is no more to blame for the patriarchy existing than a single car is to blame for global warming. The patriarchy is a societal level problem, and both men and women can be responsible for it's continued existence. All of us are required to dismantle it. My one concession to the point of view mentioned, is to say that men, as the primary beneficiaries under patriarchy, are in the best position to help dismantle it. This is a nuanced position, so please let me know if I've been unclear. This is also a theme that you return to multiple times throughout your response, so I won't respond to each instance. Every time you reduce my position to something like Whiteness is evil or white devil, return here for the nuance.

The second and third paragraphs contain arguments in response to literally nothing I've said, so I feel no need to respond to them. If you wish to argue with a bad facsimile of me, do so, but I'm not interested in it. You do seem to focus on the plight of women in majority Muslim nations. I too worry about these women, but I think the optimal solution is to dismantle the patriarchy. Islam doesn't cause these things, the patriarchy is these things.

The fourth paragraph kinda showcases a misunderstanding of how these systems work. White supremacy is not a cultural force in the nations listed, because white people are not in power in them. These power structures tend to solidify at the national level, because nations are the highest level governments. America has to deal with white supremacy because in its history white people have historically made up the ruling class, and the structures that benefit us have calcified as a result. White supremacy didn't form in Japan, because there is no historical white ruling class for it to benefit,  and thus no mechanisms to preserve it in the high levels of power. The patriarchy is a separate structure, and promulgated in more nations, because men are everywhere, and have acted as the ruling class in most nation's through history. By the way, this is likely due to biology. Men, with their generally superior strength, gained prominence due to physical dominance in the earliest eras of human history.

Fifth paragraph is asking about the impact of white supremacy, or lack thereof in nations like China and Japan. As explained, those nations don't have that structure. So, moving on.

Paragraph six requires some work. Specifically, I need to explain what I mean when I say white supremacy. It's not a hate group, it's a series of interlocking social systems that benefit people who are racialized as white. It's made up of things like the school to prison pipeline, the lack of representation of people of color in media, the drug war, racist policing practices, and so on. These are evident. They are entrenched in the system of the US, and they advantage white people, and predominantly harm black people. These are white supremacy, and that's why I say black supremacy isn't a thing. There is no comparable series of social structures that benefit black people at the expense of other people. And there is no power to institutionalize such such systems. I know there are black people that hold prejudice against white people, but that isn't the same as a system of supremacy.

Finally, Islam is just a religion. Without the patriarchy, it's no more harmful to women than anything else. Dismantling the patriarchy will do more to protect women in your country, and everywhere, than falling to Islamophobia.

And wow, I've been writing this all day whenever I have had a free minute. Glad it's done! I'll probably take a break tonight.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 
Viva Trans-lution!!!!!!!