There's a whole "have your cake and eat it too" mentality going on here that's kind of upsetting. These trans students are men, and yet they are attending a women's college, living in women's dorms. They're apparently making waves because they're trying to remove the emphasis on gender(and women specifically) from a women's college. In other words, tim is trying to rob the university from its identity because he slipped in through a loop hole and feels discriminated against because (surprise!) the school is purpose built to exclude men. Would you agree with an atheist student at a private religious university trying to remove references to god from the school charter? or a religious student trying to add references to god to a public university charter? Of course not! Got to give it to Wellesley for not kicking his ass out upon realizing that he lied about the primary qualification for attendance, but I don't think that give him the right to try and remake the school in his own image.
When Women Become Men at Wellesley
41–50 of 70 posts
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race. "Occasionally my gender-race is c…
How is it his fault and why should he care? He didn't choose to be born as a white man. He has no more responsibility for his race than any national for their country.
Where did I say it was his fault? If I said that, it was an error. It's not relevant whose fault it is.
(Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.)
Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
sorry you have faced so much discrimination as a white man. I hope one day that changes.
By trivialising issues faced by males, can you still claim what you are advocating is equality? edit: downvotes are really good arguments :^)
I do not thing equality is the right goal yet. For the time being it is active anti-discrimination and this means sometimes we have to discriminate to the advantage of generally disadvantaged groups. As a white male I have also found it annoying witnessing such anti-discrimination induced discrimination in the past, but I now see the reason why it is needed.
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it his fault and why should he care? He didn't choose to be born as a white man. He has no more responsibility for his race than any national for their country.
Where did I say it was his fault? If I said that, it was an error. It's not relevant whose fault it is. (Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.) Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?
Suppose I belong to an advantaged group, what good does it do to me if I admit the advantage exists? Why would I ever want to give up this advantage?
Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#45> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man. > “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.” I find this concept both…
It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…
Flipping the races (or sexes) around in a statement is often fascinating. Statements that seem benign turn out to be highly racist or sexist, and vice versa.
Nowadays, racism against anyone other than white is despised, and sexism against anyone other than men is despised. Conversely, anti-White racism or anti-male sexism is permitted, and in some circles, condoned and even encouraged. Just the politically correct times that we live in.
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did I say it was his fault? If I said that, it was an error. It's not relevant whose fault it is. (Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.) Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?
Suppose I belong to an advantaged group, what good does it do to me if I admit the advantage exists? Why would I ever want to give up this advantage? Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?
Again, these are questions about your ethical framework that are not answerable by me. Personally I find it detestable and anti-social to try to hoard unearned advantages based on race and gender. If you were my friend and admitted this to me face to face, I would have to seriously consider our relationship. But you aren't my friend, and if you're OK with it there's little I could possibly say to convince you otherwise, especially on the internet.
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…
As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way. I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.
>white men are in a position of privilege
It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved.
You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose I belong to an advantaged group, what good does it do to me if I admit the advantage exists? Why would I ever want to give up this advantage? Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?
Again, these are questions about your ethical framework that are not answerable by me. Personally I find it detestable and anti-social to try to hoard unearned advantages based on race and gender. If you were my friend and admitted this to me face to face, I would have to seriously consider our relationship. But you aren't my friend, and if you're OK with it there's little I could possibly say to convince you otherwi…
Hoarding these advantages may make life better for everyone.
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…
White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race. "Occasionally my gender-race is c…
You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull. As an example:
disproportionate victimization with sexual violence
Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf
Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan, and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that racism. [2]
[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...
[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
Re: When Women Become Men at Wellesley
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express: “I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.” Such a person would be pilloried as a racist. It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their ra…
As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way. I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.
Google around and you'll find a zillion examples like this one:
Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-...
Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks, you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying to increase its "diversity"—and which one isn't?—what you are actually telling him is we need fewer people like you. And when you realize how many white men support "diversity", et al., you'll understand how bizarre the whole situation really is.
The solution, by the way, is to grow a thick skin, suck it up, and deal. Indeed, there's no other choice at present; in our current political climate, complaining often works wonders for politically favored grievance groups, but no one wants to hear complaints from white men. The political power needed to change this is immense—far greater than the current pathetic attempts to push back (Republicans, the Tea Party, etc.). Best learn to live with it. (I still find it fascinating, though, which is why I can't resist commenting on the phenomenon.)