The Deciders

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.

Which jargon?

I think the term Deciders was stumbling me up.

As a term referring to individuals, it doesn't make sense to me. Obama is black, Clinton's a woman. So's Gillard, in my government. Not to mention our Government's Penny Wong who's Asian and lesbian. Saying they they count as 'non-deciders' but pointing to white straight men who lack basic literacy, numeracy and social skills and calling them Deciders makes NO sense to me.

BUT

I'm realizing (or at least I think this is what's being said) that 'Deciders' isn't referring to individuals, rather the dominant paradigm, whose values and world views are enforced through media and social expectation and who represent the baseline for 'normal'.

The fact that an individual does or does not belong to this paradigm does NOT determine whether or not they are served by it whether or not it translates to any meaningful form of power, but it certainly tips it in their favor.

Thinking more, I do like the OP, and I think I'm mostly stumbling over some jargon that doesn't mesh for me.

Thanks, man.

If I overjargon things, please do ask me to explain the jargon, because like most nerds I don't always know the difference between a specialized term and a term that's in common use.

I have no idea if Deciders is a technical term or a Nigelism, but that's where I was getting tripped up.

EDIT: The strike-through.

I made it up on the fly when trying to decide what to call the thread. It seems like a lot of people are hung up on it and are reading the OP as if I'm saying that all straight white men are in charge, rather than looking at it as a social trend. I think, based on the number of times here and in other threads, that I can probably explain myself blue in the face and use the most general language possible, and those same people are never going to accept/understand the sociological perspective I'm trying to convey, so I went for more color and illustration, and less dry "social trends indicate" type verbiage.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

This sounds like a probability matrix.  Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).

Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?

I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.

Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact.  But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.

Right, so you have one quadrant of SMWs as deciders, those who are SWM AND have economic and social power.  But those at the ass-end of things, who have neither of those, are most certainly NOT deciders, despite being SWM.


That's why I say again the generalization is too broad and actually becomes alienating for the SWMs in that quadrant.

MY BEST GUESS, COMING FROM A GENUINE ATTEMPT TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS.

I think that "Decider" is not a definitive word here, it's a descriptive one. Also the OP is talking about "general social terms" even though it is phrased as a one-on-one or one-to-many declarative. It sounds rough but that's the intention. It needs to sound rough to bring attention to the fact that the *WM demographic is, because of society's expectations and traditions, inherently (yes, inherently) immune from most of the "I can see what you are and can make a judgment call about your character before you say or do anything" kind of oppression.

Yes, there are many kinds of oppression and discrimination. Race, gender, economic, educational, and otherwise. The *WM can experience all of them, too -- including race discrimination -- depending on where he is, what he's trying to do, etc. Nobody is saying, as far as I can read into it, that he is immune to all forms of discrimination, or that he is invariably "powerful." What's being said is that because of the general tilt of society, he lacks a perspective that qualifies him from telling women or minorities what it's really like to be oppressed because of their genetics, because of what they are.

*WM can be oppressed, and indeed many if not most of us are in one way or another. But our oppression lacks a key component of their oppression: whether we are oppressed by circumstance, or money, or political power, we could jump into a fancy suit and nobody would be the wiser. For them it's not that simple. They encounter rudeness, unwanted advances, muttered slurs, unfair assumptions and general disregard (no pun intended) no matter how well they dress or speak or how affluent they look -- or indeed how affluent they really are. Society brands them as a "known quantity" before they even walk through the door, and that robs them of at least part of their right to define themselves.

White men simply do not have that disadvantage -- to claim we do is both ignorant and arrogant. While any one of those things might happen to you or me, and we can surely produce an anecdote to "identify" with how it feels to be written off before we've had a chance, that isn't the same as living in a society that is built around doing that to us. And to say we have been there so we know how to fix the problem is disingenuous at best. Sometimes when we try to "fix" a problem we do it by trying to maintain the smooth running of a system that is wrong to begin with. Worst of all, because of our background, we don't even realize that, which makes our attempts both patronizing and privileged.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

RWHN, it if helps, think of it this way:

Assuming an otherwise broadly equal status, SWM are more powerful than compared to other social/ethic/gender groups, probabalistically speaking.

I don't think anyone would deny a black lesbian CEO is more powerful than a white, straight male making minimum wage.  However, assuming broadly equitable socio-economic status, a straight white man is likely to have advantages that others do not.  To continue the working class theme, a working class woman is more likely to suffer from low wages, violence, unequal treatment from police etc than working class men are.  Relationships or power struggles between a white straight man of working class status and others of working class status will likely favour him.

Obviously, this highlights the importance of class and economic power within social relations, something I believe Pixie in particular has brought up, when she linked feminism with socialism.

Yes.

A "decider" may not be the one in charge of the country, but men, particularly white men, are socially expected to be in charge in their own households, in their personal echelons.

[Juana]

Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.

No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:

On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.

I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.

Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)

Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are appalling).

TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.

I bristled at the term "Deciders" myself, at first...but I think that I read it now as this...

SWM are the "Deciders" of what the norm is, what the mainstream is. If I am in that category it's mighty easy to think that I can apply some universal standard of "doing it right" because to my mind everybody is everybody because I have, much more likely than not, come to understand "everybody" in terms of myself. That's just the way it comes down. Regardless of whether I'm sitting in a board room or a jail cell, as a SWM I'm considerably more likely than a non-SWM to consider my own thoughts and feelings to be "normal", "standard" or even "healthy".

Am I hearing that right, Nigel?

Yes, that is a huge part of it; everyone tends to do that to some degree, and it's called false consensus. However, those who are considered normal by society have their false consensus culturally reinforced, to the point where it can be incredibly difficult for them to believe, let alone perceive, that other people have experiences that they are unaware of. In addition, from early childhood there is enormous social pressure on men, and on white men in particular, to take charge, be decisive, be a go-getter, make things happen. Our culture considers these highly desirable traits in men. Men are socially trained to communicate in order to make things happen, and far less to communicate to convey emotion or to enhance social bonding. You could see that illustrated here in another thread, in several reactions to the idea that women often communicate just to share their feelings. The adverse reaction was fascinating... to communicate solely for the purpose of sharing emotional reactions was called stupid, needy, and draining, among other things.

^^^^ This

When you have a demographic who has been culturally reinforced to value taking charge, fixing things, and make things happen, it can be very difficult for its members to stop doing those things at times when it's not appropriate. It goes against a lifetime of conditioning. Many times, they can't even see the ways in which it disempowers/angers the people they are trying to "fix things" for.

Roger and I talked about the latter part a little bit in his Hear Me Out thread. (teal deer, people from enfranchised groups who want to help the disempowered tend to basically say, "oh, you poor women/PoC/queers! Here, let me do it for you/protect you/etc." instead of asking how to help)

[AFK]

I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM.  There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other.  If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.


Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues.  SWMs who have had substance abuse issues.  SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.


Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.


The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.

[Juana]

I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM.  There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other.  If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.


Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues.  SWMs who have had substance abuse issues.  SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.


Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.


The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.

I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.

If you're ceding the "broad cultural discussion" thing, then why are we arguing? Because that's, um, my point. And has been my point since my first post.

[AFK]

Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.

No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:

On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.

I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.

Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)

Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are appalling).

TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.

Honestly, it really feels to me that you aren't able to step outside of your life experience to appreciate how many SWMs you are alienating with your lone of thought.  It really feels like you are ignoring and not honestly considering the very real world in which some SWMs live where they have absolutely NO power, privilege, or position to "decide" anything, other than how they are going to muste up the scarce capacity to be able to have lunch.  I think you are somdeep into this cause and argument that it is limiting your vision and ability to empathize with the kind of people I've been describing. 


You are not going to get very far by alienating people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you've never tried to get a job with a record then don't tell me how I should feel about workplace discrimination.

If you weren't raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" then don't tell me how I need to be more "kind".

If you haven't spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence, don't tell me I shouldn't be such a fucking know-it-all.

I am, for all intents and purposes a SWM, but I wholly relate to the OP on the above point.

raised out the ass-end of a "fighting bar" - check!

spent half your life feeling like you needed to hide your intelligence - check!

tried to get a job with a record - negative

Damn, I'm only 2/3rds as oppressed as you. Guess I'm the privileged one then!

Congratulations on not getting caught 

I've never counted myself as oppressed, but I do count my ass as annoyed when some fucktard starts spouting off about how "I'm doing it wrong" when they don't have the first fucking clue what I'm doing or why. I think that's kind of a universal sentiment.

EDIT: On that last third, I can testify that getting rejected for employment because of some completely fucking unrelated rap I caught a lifetime ago--especially when desperate for income, felt roughly like getting sucker-punched in the gut but worse because the pinche ass-hat that threw the blow wasn't around to punch back. I can only imagine how fucking rotten that would feel if it happened in 100 different ways all the time on the basis of my dangly bits, skin color, or who I liked to tickle.

What I wanted to do when it happened is join with others in the same boat and fight like a motherfucker--not as a human, not as a person who doesn't see color, gender, socio-economic class, or irrelevancies from a background check, but as AN EX-OFFENDER. Fuck you if you want to tell me that I should approach that situation as just an egalitarian everybody because I wasn't really given the fucking choice to do that.

Gay people aren't given the choice to see sexual orientation as irrelevant. Women aren't given the choice to see gender as irrelevant. "Colored folk" aren't given the choice to see race as irrelevant. It's just the truth. Telling them that they should see it that way, or should feel that way, is just, frankly, fucking ignorant--and yes, chiefly perpetrated from the SWM position of "all everything/everybody is exactly as I am", which is exactly the position that is fed back to them on the daily.

Holy shit, all of this... so much! Especially the bolded part.

As far as the convict stigma goes, there's a whole conversation to be had there, because there's a whole layer of oppression going on there that's utterly fucked-up. It's the creation of a whole new underclass... you may not be visibly an ex-con, but trying to find work or housing with a criminal record can be terribly difficult, even if the conviction was decades ago for something that has no bearing on either. If it's a drug conviction you're even more screwed, and are denied housing assistance, food assistance, and Federal financial aid for college. The only way this system makes sense is if it's designed to keep people in prison.

[AFK]

I've already addressed the experience discussion point and that I believe it goes much deeper than SWM.  There are subsets within SWM, SBM, SWF, SBF, etc., etc. that have different experiences from each other.  If youmare going to suggest or imply that SWM as a whole has one cohesive quality of experience, you alienate those who have had a different set of experiences.


Say, for example, SWMs with behavioral health issues.  SWMs who have had substance abuse issues.  SWMs that grew up in one of THOSE neighborhoods, etc.


Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.


The communication needs to be a little more nuanced and sophisticated than that.

I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.

If you're ceding the "broad cultural discussion" thing, then why are we arguing? Because that's, um, my point. And has been my point since my first post.

I'm not ceding anything, I just quoted you earlier where you said ALL SWMs were deciders.  That's different than a broad discussion of SWMs generally over time having more advantages.  The former statement includes SWMs who don't actually fit that criteria.  You probably need to be more careful with the statements you make and the language you use if you aren't intending to label ALL SWMs.

[Juana]

Hmm, I'm pleasantly surprised to find I agree 100% with Vex. He's on the right motorcycle.

No LMNO, it's been more than just that word in this thread, example:

On a cultural level (which is what Nigel's talking about when she says "Deciders") all white straight men are the ones who decide how things will go.

I object to that ALL mentality because it most certainly is NOT all.

Yes, you do. I have already gone through extensive examples why and I am not actually interested in repeating myself for a fifth time. Your tastes and your expectations and the policies put forth to attract your vote affect the rest of us. Yes, (AGAIN) the super rich are the ultimate Deciders, but the tastes and expectations and policies of SWM as a broad demographic touch everyone else.
As you actually ARE a SWM (a middle class one, yes?) you may not experience this, but believe me, we do (are you going to specifically answer my points? if you want to be able to make an effective argument, instead of I'M NOT A RICH WHITE MAN I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A DECIDER!, you probably ought to)

Also, also, I want to point out (AGAIN) that SWM of all socio-economic demographics tend to be better off than the others in the same class. Yes, it's harder for NoLe to get a job because of his record than it is for someone without a record, but that's having a record at all. A MoC with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. A woman with the same record is going to have it a lot harder than he does. Someone who cannot hide how queer they are/appear to be (or chooses not to) with the same record is going to have it harder than he does.
Pent, you have no record, yes? Look at the stats for people who aren't straight white men in similar circumstances. For a fairly extreme example, look, let's say, at the lives of transwomen of all races (their murder, homelessness, rape, and unemployment stats are appalling).

TBH, I think we lost sight of part of the purpose of this thread, which specifically involved stepping outside your privilege and letting those of us who have not ever had a chance to really make our own decisions (culturally, as Nigel pointed out, and individually, in terms of having SWM interpret our experiences (see below)) make our own decisions.

Honestly, it really feels to me that you aren't able to step outside of your life experience to appreciate how many SWMs you are alienating with your lone of thought.  It really feels like you are ignoring and not honestly considering the very real world in which some SWMs live where they have absolutely NO power, privilege, or position to "decide" anything, other than how they are going to muste up the scarce capacity to be able to have lunch.  I think you are somdeep into this cause and argument that it is limiting your vision and ability to empathize with the kind of people I've been describing. 


You are not going to get very far by alienating people.

Please see what I have emphasized and then read below.

I specifically said SWM are not all the same but as I have pointed out, the ultimate difference is class and as Vex said, put on a nice suit and it's much, much harder to tell you aren't one of the Ultimate Deciders.

Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This sounds like a probability matrix.  Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).

Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?

I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.

Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact.  But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.

And also, yes, this. But there's more, which is the cultural indoctrination angle, which can make it hard for the SWM (most men, really, but straight white men have the most power, culturally speaking) to, if all else is equal in terms of class, step down so that the BML can be in charge. Anyone who doubts that should try being a woman in a workplace... unless you're in a highly sensitive, heavily female environment (like social work, for example) most women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society. Women in the workplace often find that they have to be extremely aggressive in order to counteract this tendency.

There's a reason more men are promoted into management than women, and it's that tendency to "take charge". To deny that it exists is to deny the entire history of sociological and cultural studies in the West. For many years it was considered to be innate; as we make progress, though, and understand enculturation and neuroscience better, consensus has shifted toward it being a social norm, not a biological norm.

[AFK]

Yes, that's right, the ultimate decider IS class.  So if you want to amend your label to Upper Class Straight White Males, we can talk.  But if you are going to make a statement that ALL SWMs are the deciders in society, I can't get on board with that because it simply isn't true. 


And the audience of your message is key. The broad discussion is okay for a broad audience, but when it is specifically addressed to an audience of SWMS, which the OP is, then it becomes more important to be nuanced in your labelling less you risk alienating and insulting part of your audience.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Whoa, you just blew my mind. Because the combination of culturally-reinforced false consensus (nice term!) in a group socialized to be assertive and active explains so. damn. much. shit.

Thanks!

At some point toward the end of my schooling, when I have more of the pieces of the puzzle of human behavior put together, I plan to write a book about why we do things that are counterproductive to our own well-being.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Again, as a broad cultural discussion it is one thing, but when you are actually talking to and addressing the cohort of SWMs, you WILL alienate those who don't actually have the life experience and privilege you are ascribing to them.

In other words, we need to not tell straight white males that we find some of their behaviors alienating, because it will alienate them?

I think you are illustrating my point very well, RWHN.

[P3nT4gR4m]

This sounds like a probability matrix.  Take two people: one SWM, one BML (Black Midget Lesbian).

Given the same economic environment (and any other equalizing factors you may want to add to get my meaning), what is the probability that the SWM will experience more privilege than the BML?

I would say that the SWM has a consistently higher probability of privilege than the BML from a cultural perspective.

Now, if you change the economic environment for the BML, and make her the CEO of Microsoft, she now has more power, with which she can weild to give her more opportunities for social impact.  But that's an economic angle, not a cultural one.

And also, yes, this. But there's more, which is the cultural indoctrination angle, which can make it hard for the SWM (most men, really, but straight white men have the most power, culturally speaking) to, if all else is equal in terms of class, step down so that the BML can be in charge. Anyone who doubts that should try being a woman in a workplace... unless you're in a highly sensitive, heavily female environment (like social work, for example) most women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society. Women in the workplace often find that they have to be extremely aggressive in order to counteract this tendency.

There's a reason more men are promoted into management than women, and it's that tendency to "take charge". To deny that it exists is to deny the entire history of sociological and cultural studies in the West. For many years it was considered to be innate; as we make progress, though, and understand enculturation and neuroscience better, consensus has shifted toward it being a social norm, not a biological norm.

This is interesting. Can't say I'm sold but it certainly warrants investigation.

most women find that their male coworkers, especially white male coworkers, have a tendency to simply take over. They think they're helping, and they're just doing what they have been indoctrinated to do since childhood; they're fulfilling a gender role given to them by society.

Not so sold on this, tho. I'm not ruling it out completely, just thinking about the testosterone-factor which I think figures in there as well. In an all male environment, all things equal, the biggest, loudest one will generally take charge.