Nerds and Male Privilege

[Erik_Twice]

How will it not provoke irate defensiveness when you are accusing the reader of being a terrible person? Even worse, the article presumes he is a terrible person, as well as assuming he's white and American, which is a beyond terrible ground to take.

The entirity of the article is a list of claims that the writer considers inherent proof of racism in the person which are said only and because one reason and which have no middle ground or no nuance, they are only, always and ever racist and wrong, which no debate being possible because she says so.

In fact, this text has no audience other than people who already agree, something that explains the lark of justifications or the chaff filling the article. Nobody is ever some kind of race accountant (#25) at least not in a way that could be described in less than two paragraphs.


Is this obsession with seeing race as an issue with blacks and whites that apparently makes her find the statement that black people are as racist as white people to be troubling because blacks aren't racist against whites, just racially prejudiced, whatever the difference is.

Because, of course, that's the only racism: White against Black. There are no huge issues in cities like San Francisco with blacks beating Koreans or Jews using influence to sush black murders in New York. That I, a person who lives on the other side of the planet, knows about these issues and she apparently doesn't makes me wonder if she's one of those Avon Allies that she complains about (#22) or that she's ignorant of her "privilege".

Her constant use of "colored" instead of the simpler, more natural and without a long history of racism "black" also propagate this mixture of pretentiousness and discomfort which is very ugly. Small nitpick but you know I fancy myself a writer.

In fact more than a writer I fancy myself a critic which is why I can't accept poorly argument, poorly written articles like this. And I don't want to dimiss your contribution, JT, because you may very well be my favourite poster but I seriously think all regulars here are way beyond the level of understanding the article presumes, quality aside.

So yeah. I was bored I guess


EDIT: And sorry but this part is so beyond stupid it made me lose 15 IQ points

Statements like (Character, not color, is what counts with me.) assume that people of color are just like you, white; that they have the same dreams, standards, problems, and peeves that you do.

There's so much wrong with that statement that I prefer to ignore it

[MrPopo]

Her constant use of "colored" instead of the simpler, more natural and without a long history of racism "black" also propagate this mixture of pretentiousness and discomfort which is very ugly. Small nitpick but you know I fancy myself a writer.

You took the time to write out everything I was feeling after reading that article. But to be fair to the author, I think she was using "colored" to refer to non-white people, not just black people.

[Erik_Twice]

But to be fair to the author, I think she was using "colored" to refer to non-white people, not just black people.

Possibly. Which may be worse depending on who you ask

[flex wood]

I predict this article will provoke a lot of irate defensiveness, but if you really want to be non-racist/non-homophobic/non-sexist then you really have to examine all of the ways in which one can mess up at doing so, even with all the best intentions. For that reason, I think this article is great and very useful for self-examination:

http://www.stcloudstate.edu/affirmative ... Change.pdf

Wow, no joke but, that was part of my high schools curriculum. I still agree with a lot of it though surprisingly, but a lot of it is complete bullshit.

Statements like (Character, not color, is what counts with me.) assume that people of color are just like you, white; that they have the same dreams, standards, problems,
and peeves that you do.

This was actually one of the things that I still agree with still, sort of, being a white kid that grew up in the hood and didn't have any white friends until I was about 14. It is actually more of a class issue then it is a race issue through. However I'm late for work and don't really have time to type out why I feel like that. Correct me if I'm wrong but the article does fail to recognize there being a class issue in this country right?

[pierrot]

But to be fair to the author, I think she was using "colored" to refer to non-white people, not just black people.

Possibly. Which may be worse depending on who you ask

'People of color' is becoming the terminology for addressing the entirety of non-white demographics.

I don't disagree with the article, but I find it contradicts itself too much, and generally doesn't understand the nature of motivation. It feels like a demonizing of (white) people's efforts at best, and a junk-food piece at worst. As a persuasive essay, I think it fails. It precludes that the white American reader is wrong in his reactions to people of race and ethnicity, while giving no model for improvement other than banding together with fellow white Americans. I can't even begin to imagine how this type of mental segregation eases racial tension. The article also attempts to have the white American reader usurp his own position of privilege without giving any idea of incentive. Instead it tells that reader that the process will feel like an unnecessary burden, as there are no road maps, and the reader must voluntarily subject himself to consistent efforts against, and examples of racism.

I believe in doing right by all people, but I don't find this article to be particularly helpful in persuading readers who have no vested interest in anti-racism to suddenly take up the cause. Worse, it has the potential to make people who want to help the cause feel more dejected and ineffectual about their efforts.

Set in a different light, I think it's a very informative article on the nature of racism, but no one wants to read, "Here's a list of reasons you're a bad person."

[o.pwuaioc]

pierrot, I think you're 100% spot on. It's sad to see that everything "anti-racist" seems to get a free pass no matter how poor the logic actually is. We should be diligent not just against racism, but also against poorly formed opinions on racism, no matter which "side" they favor.

[pierrot]

Yeah, in all honesty I would be more reluctant to voice my criticisms of the piece in a different setting. (A classroom for instance.)
I can't even pretend to be a great crusader for the liberties of minorities in America, but I think debating the issues becomes more difficult when arguments that appear to favor anti-racism are met with criticism, as any criticisms could easily be seen as opposition to anti-racism.

I also just wanted to say that I appreciate you posting the article, JT. It has its relevance, and there are some very valid points, even though I think the general argument that's made is a poor one. I hope you won't take my criticisms of the article as discouragements against you.

[DinnerX]

pierrot, I think you're 100% spot on. It's sad to see that everything "anti-racist" seems to get a free pass no matter how poor the logic actually is. We should be diligent not just against racism, but also against poorly formed opinions on racism, no matter which "side" they favor.

Can one be non-racist without being anti-racist? Or would not being anti-racist automatically make a person racist, and therefore not a non-racist?

I'm sure no difference is really meant between the two phrases, it's just that I usually think of myself as a non-racist or as being anti-racism, but not as an "anti-racist."

[Ack]

Is this obsession with seeing race as an issue with blacks and whites that apparently makes her find the statement that black people are as racist as white people to be troubling because blacks aren't racist against whites, just racially prejudiced, whatever the difference is.

Because, of course, that's the only racism: White against Black. There are no huge issues in cities like San Francisco with blacks beating Koreans or Jews using influence to sush black murders in New York. That I, a person who lives on the other side of the planet, knows about these issues and she apparently doesn't makes me wonder if she's one of those Avon Allies that she complains about (#22) or that she's ignorant of her "privilege".

I just wanted to add an addendum to this. First of all, racism is generally the term applied when one individual has some sort of position or power over the other, while racial prejudice is the term used for general opposition to someone based on their race. At least, that is how the term tends to break down its usage now. So for, say, a group of people in an ethnic minority who are also of a lower social class to oppose someone else of a different ethnicity and higher class, that would be racial prejudice, while someone of that opposed yet more financially secure ethnicity would have the power to affect them, making their actions to be racist. That said, any sort of physical action should erase any sort of distinction related to class, yet it generally does not. So if a poor man of 'X' minority beats up a rich man of 'Y' majority because of his race, the members of 'X' minority will often claim it was not a racist attack, despite said individual using physical violence to assert dominance over someone else of a different race.

Also, it should be noted that while whites are generally considered to be the majority, minority birth rates have increased, as has their political reach and power. So take an area that is heavily populated by minorities to the point they control municipal governments such as..oh, let's say Atlanta. Technically an action taken there against a ethnic "majority" should be considered racist, though don't expect it to be in view of the entire country. Also, it should be noted that while racism is denounced (especially in the majority), racial prejudice in minorities is generally not denounced or is sometimes actively encouraged by minorities. So you end up with considerable amounts of minority on minority violence and crime which generally will only be responded to with more violence. Ethnic gangs and criminal organizations, race-based retaliation for real or imagined slights (the Black on Korean crimes committed during the Rodney King riots is a great example of this), formation of organizations or coalitions to further the advancement of ideals based on race or ethnicity...all of these can lead to or be an offshoot of racial prejudice and can lead to outright discrimination.

And for the record, straight white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males really aren't as common in the US as people think these days, though we're still what is meant when people think of the majority. Technically we are represented by both political parties, though admittedly we're really not that common amongst the Democrats anymore beyond the Blue Dogs and some trade unions.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Here's something I would like to note about female treatment in the gaming world, one that I don't think we've covered yet in this thread.

In cases where women are big gamers (especially so if they are attractive), many male gamers practically worship them. We can see this in the likes of previous G4 hosts, the likes of various Youtube personalities, IGN ladies, etc.

Now, I wouldn't know, but I've heard horror stories of girls having to deal with all the guys swarming them in some situations. It seems like it would be an issue. I don't think we're so bad here, but the internet has taught me that some of the nerds out there are some creepy SOB's. Just a different spin to think of.