The Deciders

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't know what to say, because it would be really, really hard to say with a straight face that I don't have privilege and a lot more options than any other demographic group.

For example, I have been given the ability to fail and then get right back up with relative ease.  I can bounce back from a stupid mistake with less effort than could a woman or a Black person.  Example:  When I fuck up, it doesn't necessarily mean permanently losing prestige (woman in the workplace) or JAIL FOR LIFE (Black person).

I intellectually abhor privilege, in the same way a fish could intellectually abhor water, or the way an American could abhor slave labor...Loudly, on a piece of electronics made by slave children in Bangladesh.

And I'm definitely in the decider class.  In my small world, I have the power to bind and to loose (read: hire & fire).  I really only have to answer to one person in my workplace.

All of this is true.  What, though, is to be done about it?

Interesting note:  In the New Testament, Jesus goes on about this for WHOLE CHAPTERS.

And this, and what both you and Alty said in later posts.

From birth, in this society, men (particularly white men) are indoctrinated to Wear The Pants. Poor white men may not have control of the legislature, but who do you think is The Decider in the single-wide? Maybe domestic violence rates among the impoverished do a better job of illustrating that principle than I can.

[Juana]

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?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OK OK, when you boys have finished working out why feminism is irrelevant and how the 50 yr old white unemployed guy trumps 50 + years of feminist research and is an appropriate put-down to Nigels excellent OP you give us a shout eh?

We'll be in the kitchen; barefoot and pregnant

Nailed it.

[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.

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.

[Placid Dingo]

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.

[Faust]

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.

Exactly, for instance the irish government is almost if not completely white, what with there being very few people born in Ireland who aren't.

[AFK]

I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique.  I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people.  It's not about anyone trumping anyone else.  It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.

@Alty yeah I probably should have put a wink on that post.


You know if you want to talk about "inappropriate[] labelling" GD you might want to not suggest your examplar feels "completely worthless". From a feminist perspective this obviously derives from your patriarchal prejudice that he actually IS "completely worthless" because he has failed as a provider.

So,did you actually read what Nigel was saying? I've heard a lot of the sort of comments that Nigel was pillorying made on PD, sad but true. And what do you think your 50+ white unemployed man example man would say about gays getting married or women who get raped or black men in the south or any of the other stuff that has been brought up? Start thinking about your definitions of power, its not about being in the 1% it is the pervasive influence of patriarchal structures.

I dunno what he thinks until I talk to him, but neither do you, and that is yet another reason the label is inappropriate and offensive because it ends up making unfounded assumptions about individuals. 

[AFK]

You make a good point, RWHN.

The most widespread and pervasive oppression involves economic class. Agreed.

But does this invalidate, excuse, or justify the idea that most straight white men still have privilege which ought to be examined?

It makes it incredibly nuanced and, IMO, does invalidate the idea as a broad, general label.  Because it unfairly ascribes social values to individuals for whom the label doesn't fit.  You can talk about the idea that on balance a certain demographic cohort have had it better over the long run, but that is different from actually ascribing a label to all of the individuals within that cohort.  The OP does the latter and I believe that is wrong and offensive to those who have no privilege and no power.

[MMIX]

I'm not even addressing feminism with my critique.  I'm addressing inappropriately labeling people.  It's not about anyone trumping anyone else.  It's about insultingly supposing powerless people have power just because they share the same skin tone and reproductive devices as those who DO have power.

@Alty yeah I probably should have put a wink on that post.


You know if you want to talk about "inappropriate[] labelling" GD you might want to not suggest your examplar feels "completely worthless". From a feminist perspective this obviously derives from your patriarchal prejudice that he actually IS "completely worthless" because he has failed as a provider.

So,did you actually read what Nigel was saying? I've heard a lot of the sort of comments that Nigel was pillorying made on PD, sad but true. And what do you think your 50+ white unemployed man example man would say about gays getting married or women who get raped or black men in the south or any of the other stuff that has been brought up? Start thinking about your definitions of power, its not about being in the 1% it is the pervasive influence of patriarchal structures.

I dunno what he thinks until I talk to him, but neither do you, and that is yet another reason the label is inappropriate and offensive because it ends up making unfounded assumptions about individuals.

So ignore the label, its not really germane to the discussion anyhow; deal with the substantive material in the thread. And why are you getting so worked up and offended on behalf of a fictional guy you pulled out of your ass to use as an example?

[AFK]

Because what seemingly few people in this thread want to recognize is that you can't just consider all SWM's to be the same.  They aren't all a bunch of ignorant rednecks who hate women, people who are gay, other races....


But that is what many of you are hinting at with some of your comments.  I live in a very white state that has many, many SWM's.  There are many of them in the community that I serve, and I know damn well that many of them are pretty powerless and are not any kind of Decider.  They also aren't a bunch of nameless goons whomhave it in for women and people who are gay.  Certainly there are some that do, but I'm not about to make assumptions and generalizations about people I don't know.


They are people.
They are individuals.


Honestly, I really feel there is some stereotyping going on here which I think is inappropriate.


The brush is too broad.

[AFK]

But who cares, right?


Because as we all know ALL SWM's are either privileged homophobic college fratboy jocks or gun toting racist rednecks, right?


It's not possible there could be people who have been just as forgotten as others in our society, right?


They must all forever suffer the sins of their WASP forefathers, right?

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

You make a good point, RWHN.

The most widespread and pervasive oppression involves economic class. Agreed.

But does this invalidate, excuse, or justify the idea that most straight white men still have privilege which ought to be examined?

It makes it incredibly nuanced and, IMO, does invalidate the idea as a broad, general label.  Because it unfairly ascribes social values to individuals for whom the label doesn't fit.  You can talk about the idea that on balance a certain demographic cohort have had it better over the long run, but that is different from actually ascribing a label to all of the individuals within that cohort.  The OP does the latter and I believe that is wrong and offensive to those who have no privilege and no power.

I'm with you here. SWM is a bit broad of a brush. Any one piece of that is fairly valid. Straight is generally a position of more privilege than gay, white more so than non-white, male more so than female--but when you lump all that together you come up with a cohort that isn't all that meaningful.

Your talk about the French in Maine reminds me of "Timber Folk" and "Ranchers" where my family is from. Whether you cut timber or ranched was a much more important indicator of privilege there than was SWM or otherwise. I would wager that there's a similar distinction in just about any region.

When people say SWM I think they tend to picture Ward Cleaver and forget all about Tom Joad. Yes, Tom's sister Rose probably has a whole set of considerations that Tom will never have to deal with, but that doesn't negate the fact that Tom and Rose have a hell of a lot more in common than Tom and Ward ever will.

I can see how being lumped in with the Ward Cleavers of the world might stick in a lot of people's craw.

[AFK]

Precisely. And I don't disagree with the idea that certain kinds of people will never completely experience things, fears, dangers, that other kinds of people will.


What I'm saying is that division actually goes a lot deeper than SWM, because even within SWM, there are different groups who experience/don't experience many things.  A French kid in the poor neighborhoods here is never going to experience Bates College.  The kid at Bates is never going to experience what it's like to scrounge for cans just to buy a loaf of bread. 


They are both SWMs, but their worlds are VERY different.

[Cain]

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.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Right...

...and on Nigel's OP, though, June Cleaver and Rose Joad share a whole set of knowledge and experience that Tom Joad, Ward Cleaver, Myself, Yourself and Wilford Brimley will never get. What I do get is how there are few things in the world that make me more stabby than being told what I should think, feel or do, by someone who doesn't have the first fucking clue what it's like to be me.

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.