How to Easily Debunk the “White Privilege” Slander

by W.F. Price on September 16, 2013

The idea that white people have unearned racial privilege is an insidious lie that justifies everything from discrimination against white children to reflexively blaming disadvantaged and poor whites for their misfortune. It’s a slander that serves the elite while slapping the common people across the face.

Fortunately, it’s very easy to debunk because of the nature of privilege.

Privileges, whether earned or not, give one an advantage over others who do not share them. However, the advantage is relative; it does not exist when the unprivileged are absent.

Therefore, one would expect that if white privilege were real, in order to capitalize on it white people would be rushing to surround themselves with nonwhites, avoiding white neighborhoods, going to majority nonwhite schools, doing business mainly with nonwhites and working with nonwhites.

In the meanwhile, nonwhites would avoid majority white neighborhoods, institutions, schools and workplaces, because they would be at a disadvantage in these places.

Do we see this happening?

Nope.

The concept of male privilege can be debunked in the same manner. If men really were privileged, why would women push so hard to gain entrance into male institutions, and men have so little interest in female ones? The implication here is not that men have privilege, but rather that women do.

So next time someone blathers on about “white male privilege,” simply ask: if it really exists, why is it that so few people take advantage of it?

{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }

keyster September 16, 2013 at 13:14

How else does one explain the inordinate dominance of the white male in all areas of science, art, discovery, innovation and leadership for the last thousand years? Since we’re all equal in intellectual ability and work ethic, obviously we’ve conspired to exclude women and other races from excelling. This means women and other races have to work even harder to succeed, which is not fair.

We need Affirmative Action to offset white male hegemony, because white males must be deliberately undermining the efforts of females and non-white males. There’s no other reason for it. If we promote more “inclusiveness” (by government mandate), females and non-white males will be able to better police our biases against them, while learning our “secrets”. Eventually women and minorities will demonstrate that white males were never that superior. We were exclusionary, predjudiced and basically cheated everyone else out of greatness. If we complain about Affirmative Action programs it’s because we’re clinging to privilege and don’t want to lose our “power”.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 69 Thumb down 67
... September 16, 2013 at 13:39

I’ll swallow my grievances quietly without drama if the next man does the same too for himself … AND ALSO FOR HIS WOMEN !

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 17
Brian September 16, 2013 at 13:48

Yeah, men just have so much privilege that they still aren’t allowed into the women’s bathroom. I mean, Jesus, it takes A LOT of white, male privilege to not have access to someplace full of human urine and excrement. And that’s exactly why we need the government to force corporate boards at gunpoint to allow more women into, well, everywhere. It doesn’t matter how many more, just MORE, damn it. Oh, and Fortune 500 companies, please.

Feminist logic 101.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 6
Charles Martel September 16, 2013 at 14:08

Bill, you just will not leave any sacred cow ungored, will you? Stop by HR later today please and they will schedule some refresher sensitivity training for you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 4
asdf September 16, 2013 at 14:15

This reasoning doesn’t debunk the notion of *demographic group* privilege since it does not require that the privileged demographic live and work within a set proximity to the unprivileged demographic, only that they exist within the same political unit (at a minimum they would need to be in the country but beyond that there is no geographic restriction).

As an analogy, take the kind of advantage one would have by being born to a wealthy family. Compared to a common man, the born-wealthy man would likely have gone to different schools, made different friends, and landed different jobs because his parents’ money would have put him in an environment that excluded the poor. It should be clear that exclusive private schools and rich friends bestow some kind of advantage on those lucky enough to get them, and that the more exclusive these remain the greater an advantage they bestow relative to their non-exclusive counterparts. If we call this advantage ‘privilege’ (since this is pretty much the leftist definition of what privilege is), you can see why nobody with ‘privilege’ would supposedly want to mingle with the ‘un-privileged’.

The problem with logically tackling the *demographic* privilege assertion is that it is merely a political tool of the left and not based on any sort of logical reasoning or empirical observation. It can not be logically argued because the very notion of *demographic* privilege is extremely vague (virtually anything can be said to be privilege or its opposite), self-contained (requires no outside input, such as evidence) and has a built in explanation for every objection (eg. “privilege means that you don’t see your own privilege!” and other such bullshit that derive from its vagueness).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
realist September 16, 2013 at 14:41

“Since we’re all equal in intellectual ability and work ethic…”

It’s not really “intellect” or “work ethic” (I mean you can’t exactly blame the mothers of yore who raised multiple kids for not having a “work ethic” can you)… it’s the drive and motivation. Women are not driven and motivated to go to war or to build stuff because they don’t need to be. Men ARE, because they DO need to be. If men weren’t biologically driven to prove themselves, compete, be industrious, etc., they’d be worthless from the biological perspective and we all know this. So these kinds of arguments are basically unnecessary. You say only men built (and destroyed) stuff, well, they better do that… because otherwise there really is no purpose for them on this earth, except for maybe as companions or just special human beings (like we all are). But that’s not what men are here for. And the reason women didn’t do anything.. yea, first, they weren’t socially put in those places, second, they don’t really want to be there, third, they had no time – up until recently most of them had several children and to raise those you need to assemble the whole female collective, not just the young ones. So they were pretty busy, but you probably didn’t notice because raising kids and cleaning after them is kinda boring and not that glamorous, and the results are nothing magnificent, but, well, just people, including men, and so the circle continues.

To put white women and non-whites in one grievance group is wrong. White women have their own set of “privileges” or rather what could be called natural advantages and even social bonuses that minorities, men or women, don’t and can’t have. Also, there are certain natural advantages that white women don’t and can’t have but some minorities do. By evening them all out, you will run into problems sooner or later, like now, when white and black feminists can’t find solidarity.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 9
Noble Dragon September 16, 2013 at 14:48

A clever argument, but something doesn’t quite compute. I think many of us would agree that we live in a society of tremendous female privilege. However, to apply your argument, since men are not running around trying to break into female-majority places there must not be any female privilege. But, of course, that is not the case. Women in western societies *do* enjoy great privilege, even as men are not generally trying to break into their domains.

So, I think there is more to it than that. Still, your idea is interesting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
TFH September 16, 2013 at 16:13

Noble Dragon,

A clever argument, but something doesn’t quite compute.

I agree with Noble Dragon. The premise of the main article is correct, but there are much stronger arguments.

For example, when Group A can say something about Group B, while Group B cannot say the same about Group A, then Group A is the privileged one.

Blacks can say things about whites that whites cannot say about blacks.

Women can say things about men that would get a man fired or worse if he said the same things about women.

That is the stronger argument.
_____________________________________

Secondly, I should point out that Asians (East and South), do NOT get affirmative action in college admissions, etc. That is fortunate, as AA tends to greatly harm the group it supposedly ‘helps’. But I often see the misconception that Chinese, Indians, Koreans, etc. ‘benefit’ from AA the same way that blacks and Hispanics do. That is simply not true.

Of course, the greatest privilege of all is what women have, and what men do not. Race is far smaller of a factor, as men of all races suffer under misandric laws every day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 3
geographybeefinalisthimself September 16, 2013 at 16:22

“Therefore, one would expect that if white privilege were real, in order to capitalize on it white people would be rushing to surround themselves with nonwhites, avoiding white neighborhoods, going to majority nonwhite schools, doing business mainly with nonwhites and working with nonwhites.”

Here is where limousine liberals (almost all of them so white the lilies are jealous) come into play.

Ideally we could convince them that because they have privilege by virtue of their skin pigmentation (and in the case of male limousine liberals, their Y chromosomes as well), and that such privilege only exists in the context of close geographic proximity to less privileged non-whites and especially non-white females, they should be clamoring to move to nonwhite neighborhoods, send their kids to inner-city schools, patronize only non-white owned businesses only and quit their present jobs in favor of occupational titles that have higher percentages of minority employees.

Balking at doing all four of the above actions should be seen as an amoral act. After all, limousine liberals are the only ones harping on the idea that white males have all the privilege and nobody else has any.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price September 16, 2013 at 16:31

As an analogy, take the kind of advantage one would have by being born to a wealthy family. Compared to a common man, the born-wealthy man would likely have gone to different schools, made different friends, and landed different jobs because his parents’ money would have put him in an environment that excluded the poor. It should be clear that exclusive private schools and rich friends bestow some kind of advantage on those lucky enough to get them, and that the more exclusive these remain the greater an advantage they bestow relative to their non-exclusive counterparts. If we call this advantage ‘privilege’ (since this is pretty much the leftist definition of what privilege is), you can see why nobody with ‘privilege’ would supposedly want to mingle with the ‘un-privileged’.

-asdf

Good argument, but I thought it out already. I’d respond to the argument that rich people self-segregate in order to keep their exclusive advantage and privilege by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of people they hire – the very basis of their wealth and privilege – are not privileged. And the rich, privileged folks work hard to keep them that way. Hence Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates agitating for more H1B visas to put their not-so-privileged workers at a disadvantage. The privilege the child of a wealthy family has is entirely based on the non-privilege of the people his father commands — without it he’d be a nobody.

Imagine the carnage that would ensue if billionaires and their wives could only hire each other…

As for the private school, clubs and all the rest — that’s just a way to internalize the message that “we’re not like the masses we live amongst” — it’s just reassuring window dressing. And in any event, a lot of the people at those places are simply wannabes (e.g. upper middle class professionals) who are emulating the truly powerful.

I think the logic works well, and can be applied pretty much across the board.

gender foreigner September 16, 2013 at 16:38

Consider Canada’s 116 000+ men and boys killed in armed service vs. fewer than 30 women; and the response is, “Advance women.” On top of the above gender-kill ratio, is the race-kill ratio in which over 116 000+ whites were killed in Canada’s armed services and fewer than 500 coloreds of all types. The response to that is, of course, “Advance the coloreds (against the whites).”

The above facts evidence who are the gender bullies, the women and the race bullies, the coloreds. The gender-disadvantaged (the male) and the race disadvantaged (the white) are both the men of the gender groups and the men of the race groups.

The victimizing groups, women and coloreds are the women of the gender groups and the women of the race groups. When women are the ones killed preferentially IN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PROGRAMS and the coloreds are the ones killed preferentially IN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PROGRAMS, let’s remind those groups that by their own assertions, that they are therefore, “advantaged.”

“Violence against Men” is government policy of all history, and in the case of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK…, so is, “Violence against Whites.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
gender foreigner September 16, 2013 at 16:42

Dear TFH September 16, 2013 at 16:13 :
.
.
Secondly, I should point out that Asians (East and South), do NOT get affirmative action in college admissions, etc. That is fortunate, as AA tends to greatly harm the group it supposedly ‘helps’. But I often see the misconception that Chinese, Indians, Koreans, etc. ‘benefit’ from AA the same way that blacks and Hispanics do. That is simply not true.
.
.
.
In the Frauenreich of Canada, all non-white race groups have race right to harm the white race in matters of employment and more: It’s state policy (and more) since the official group hate mandated by Pierre Trudeau in 1982.

Of course, you were talking about the Feminist States of America. Other reichs are more inclusive in their hate than the FSA.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price September 16, 2013 at 16:43

However, to apply your argument, since men are not running around trying to break into female-majority places there must not be any female privilege.

-Noble Dragon

Just to clarify, I said that’s evidence that there *is* female privilege. Most people avoid being in subordinate positions where possible, hence men’s avoidance of female-majority places. If you have privilege, you’d want to break into non-privileged people’s places, because you have an advantage over them and can capitalize on it. Men, lacking such an advantage, avoid female-majority places. Women, who do get special advantages and protections due to men’s instinctive preferences for the “fairer sex”, love to bust into men’s places so they can exercise their privilege.

gender foreigner September 16, 2013 at 16:47

Dear W.F. Price September 16, 2013 at 16:43:

Ditto, for sure. In the women’s government bureaucracies, civilian and all, women’s privileges are in evidence everywhere, women’s government schools, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Henry Hazlitt September 16, 2013 at 17:32

The argument of privileged groups getting near the unprivileged to exploit the latter disregards qualities of the spaces themselves. Were two spaces otherwise equal, then it is true that the advantaged parties would move to the other space to exploit the less lucky folk, given the assumptions.

However, spaces dominated by advantaged groups have advantages unto themselves. Working and middle class people would have an incentive to try to join high-class golf clubs and private schools, because the organizations themselves are superior. Access to the spaces is an advantage unto itself, so the “break in and exploit lesser people” dynamic doesn’t really work there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Grant September 16, 2013 at 19:01

I understand what you’re trying to say Price, but it’s a tricky argument. I wouldn’t try repeating it to any journalists, in case you get interviewed again. They would get it completely wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger September 16, 2013 at 19:30

if I were privileged, where the hell is my special water fountain?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Joeb September 16, 2013 at 19:53

I Was just having a discussion about this , Man you read my mind .
We where talking about an engineer friend that make 240 k bonuses and my white knight , pussy hound friends said “he’s in the privileged crowd.
My answer was no , He knows somethings nobody else knows and does something that is unique That nobody else can do .
So they Pay him well for what he does .
The argument went to” No he is just a privileged white man and he not worth it .
My argument was “does this really make sense “. Really . If they/ the corp. can hire some person off the street at 50 k and do the Job, don’t you think the co. would choose to take that route .
I get this all the time . I’m just privileged . I have little education and have a great Job . I’m a EMT . My answer Is always . Ill hand the person Talking my Multi tester and say” Go on do what I do Its easy .
The truth is I do what I do and nobody else can do it so the MAN pays me well. I hold him up , He would cut me in a second if he could .
Lets say that again If I did not have a special skill the Man would cut me in a second . He would replace me with someone cheaper . The man tells me that all the time ,every week , when he hands me my check .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
revver September 16, 2013 at 20:33

OT: New Miss America 2014 is a lady of Indian heritage. White American women are up in arms, and twitter ablaze with racism. It amazes me how the myth of the modern, enlightened feminist women can be shattered so fast, God bless modern twitter:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/16/miss_america_wades_into_india_heritage_critics_i_have_to_rise_above_that.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger September 16, 2013 at 21:47

American amployment and knowhow- Mike Rowe
http://profoundlydisconnected.com/your-headline-my-face/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh September 16, 2013 at 22:05

Hate to break it to you but if you use this argument the libs will find a way around it, because white/male privilege is ambiguously definded and they will claim you are “unconsciously oppressing” protected groups somehow (thoughtcrime.)

The truth is a really fluid concept to these people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire September 16, 2013 at 22:18

The best answer to this particular piece of fem boilerplate is this:

(first bait them)

“Do you agree that men are privileged?”

“Yes”

“Do you think women have a right to power?”

“Yes”

(now, get ready for the fun part.)

“So why do you think women have the RIGHT to power but men are merely PRIVILEGED?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Jacob Ian Stalk September 16, 2013 at 23:26

Racial privilege is not what you seem to think it is. It is not something initiated by white people any more. It’s everyone else’s tendency to elevate white people above their station, together with the tendency of white people not to protest.

It’s similar to male privilege in that women secretly attribute too much capability to men then blame them for not living up to their false expectations. It’s different in that while reasonable men protest the superiority falsely attributed to their personhood, white people generally don’t.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7
asdf September 17, 2013 at 05:05

“Good argument, but I thought it out already. I’d respond to the argument that rich people self-segregate in order to keep their exclusive advantage and privilege by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of people they hire – the very basis of their wealth and privilege – are not privileged. And the rich, privileged folks work hard to keep them that way. Hence Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates agitating for more H1B visas to put their not-so-privileged workers at a disadvantage. The privilege the child of a wealthy family has is entirely based on the non-privilege of the people his father commands — without it he’d be a nobody.

“Imagine the carnage that would ensue if billionaires and their wives could only hire each other…

“As for the private school, clubs and all the rest — that’s just a way to internalize the message that “we’re not like the masses we live amongst” — it’s just reassuring window dressing. And in any event, a lot of the people at those places are simply wannabes (e.g. upper middle class professionals) who are emulating the truly powerful.

“I think the logic works well, and can be applied pretty much across the board.” –W.F. Price

The fact still remains that the ‘privileged’ class has access to more prestigious institutions (schools, neighborhoods, social clubs, etc.) than the unprivileged. The unprivileged want access to these institutions (whether it will help them change their status or not), and the privileged want to keep these institutions exclusive (to maintain their relative prestige). This plays out when applied to wealth. For example, exclusive neighborhoods have high costs that are reflective of their high demand, and those high costs serve to keep poorer people from moving in. This also works for schools, as prestige and tuition seem to be strongly correlated, and anybody interested in their or their children’s future would want access to the most prestigious school around. Admittedly, it doesn’t quite work for clubs because not everyone wants to join the local country club (I know I don’t), but the tangible benefit of being in such a club is access to connections, and networks amongst the rich are often already formed in those exclusive schools they went to (so by joining that country club, Ritchie Rich is just hanging out with the same friends he’s been hanging out with for years). Remember that privilege relative to someone isn’t dependent on geographic proximity. One demographic need only be somehow better off over another demographic within a given scope (which can be as large as the entire world, as the privilege crowd does claim that those who live in the first world are privileged over those who do not, it’s just not as politically profitable for them to pursue as stuff like white privilege or male privilege).

You’d still have the problem of one case of privilege existing where the unprivileged want access to the institutions of the privileged and the privileged want to deny access to those institutions to the unprivileged. Excusing this with the employment argument opens up a whole new can of worms, because it would also strengthen the claim of privilege wherever a discrepancy between employment and pay exists (though it’s a weak argument, you should expect to see a retort about women having a high employment rate but low pay relative to men).

Maybe I’m just thinking of this the wrong way (trying to make logical sense out of something so nonsensical is making my head spin), but it doesn’t seem to me like you can disprove privilege conjecture by assuming that the tenets of privilege conjecture are true (and the most fundamental tenant is the preconception that X demographic is privileged and therefore Y demographic is oppressed).

I’m just throwing out some thoughts. As I said, the wall of privilege is seemingly impenetrable because it relies more on faith than any kind of logical reasoning, but I still hope I’m helping you strengthen your arguments by poking as many holes as I can in them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Anonymous September 17, 2013 at 05:27

Hey, penalize everyone who actually gets up off their ass and does anything– that’s elitist and must be stopped if we are to be equal!! (“From each according to his means, to each according to his needs” as Marx said– fair’s fair, you know. Ignore the Soviet Union’s trickle-up poverty, however.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
ShaunB September 17, 2013 at 06:32

What did I just read? I wouldn’t call it privilege so much as a concerted effort to keep some folks out. And, of course, not all folks practice such tactics but people in power definitely choose to keep their people in power. That’s just how it goes.

Read “Guns, Germs & Steel” by Jared Diamond. Excellent read on how things evolved…touches on how domesticating animals brought about more sophisticated germs; how guns were an effective means to kill the enemy (which breeds all types of “privilege”); how the steel/technology continues the trends that perpetuate some cultural divides.

To make things easier though: all other things equal, if 2 families stayed near each other & one family got the benefit of education while the other family was “legally” denied–statistically, which family is going to fare better over the long haul?

Um, FHA redlining? LOL…stop & frisk? Drug war results…these are some of the narrowest perspectives ever written.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Rocky September 17, 2013 at 08:38

The idea that white people have unearned racial privilege is an insidious lie that justifies everything from discrimination against white children to reflexively blaming disadvantaged and poor whites for their misfortune. It’s a slander that serves the elite while slapping the common people across the face.

This is a fair statement and goes to show that one can dispute notions like white privilege without putting down any other group.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
keyster September 17, 2013 at 09:15

Hate to break it to you but if you use this argument the libs will find a way around it,…

The term they have for it is “sub-conscious bias”.
IOW you’re a racist and/or sexist – you just don’t know it.
Racism and Sexism is still as prevelent as ever, but has just gone underground. It’s subtle and nuanced undertones – code language that only white males understand. Just ask Michael Eric Dyson or anyone that appears on MSNBC. They have it all figured out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9
Jaego September 17, 2013 at 10:33

It is a Privilege to be White. It’s not a social thing since on that level we are persecuted now. But rather it’s like winning the genetic lottery. And others envy and hate our good fortune since Whites have created wealthy, prosperous Societies and most others cannot. So they seek to supplant us and claim what we have built for themselves – aided and abetted by a truly evil Elite Class that seeks to cement their position against those who might compete with them.

Obviously no one should presume upon our glorious heritage and not make any effort to exceed it. Being White isn’t a full time job – lets leave that kind of thing to Professional Negroes – a very different thing than Negro Professionals.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15
W.F. Price September 17, 2013 at 15:40

This is a fair statement and goes to show that one can dispute notions like white privilege without putting down any other group.

-Rocky

Yes, you can do that. I don’t have to attack other people’s children when I stand up for my own kids. I don’t know why a lot of people have a hard time understanding that.

bruno September 17, 2013 at 16:19

When people who are half white, half black, systematically put themselves in the category of black, it is clear which is the category of privileged people that everybody tries to belong to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
gender foreigner September 17, 2013 at 18:34

Dear bruno September 17, 2013 at 16:19:
.
When people who are half white, half black, systematically put themselves in the category of black, it is clear which is the category of privileged people that everybody tries to belong to.
.
.
.
I noticed the same thing. In fact, I’ve developed ideas to express such practices and have modeled them on concepts from the armed services. I’ll try to be brief.

Historically, there were two services, a land force (the, “army”) and a water force (the, “navy”). In the rather clear-cut example of England/Wales//Great Britain/UK, until the time of Henry VII, the senior service was the army and then he switched it to the navy.

The force which was foremost in confronting threats to the regime was always the land force (barons trying to overthrow the central government) until Henry VII taxed the lords’ armies to death and then outlawed them. He then aided the commoners (the capital classes)–as opposed the to House of Lords (the real-estate class). Such was the start of state-supported capitalism.

To be short, the service of primary interface constitutes the, “senior service” as opposed to the otherwise undescribed, “junior service” (the army). In the USA, the senior service was always the army as the USA was a land empire. On the continent of Europe, the senior service was always the land force, the, “army” because contiguous threats were land-based (with exceptions).

When males and females are together, the males run into harm’s way (producers of protection) and the females run away or do not run into harm’s way. As such, the male is the senior gender and the female is the junior gender.

Among the races, I notice that in matters of privilege (the above discussion is one of responsibilities, and not privileges), the black race trumps the white race (black/white combo = “black” just as in Canada, when Indian/white combo = Indian or Metis. Barack Obama is thusly, “black” and in Canada, it takes 75%+ non-Indian race for an Indian to stop being an Indian.

Thusly, in matters of responsibilities, men are senior by way of pains and penalties as are white, and women are junior by way of pains and penalties as are coloreds.

The corollary is that, in matters of rights and privileges, women are senior as are coloreds.

The whole concept of senior service and senior functions in armed services does well to explain a number of phenomena in the whole gender area. For example, in matters of levels of accountability, violence against men is considered little/nothing of importance whereas violence against women is considered to be of much importance.

One would do well to notice that in the tip of the spear (the spearhead, so to speak), that is to say, the soldiers/aircrew/ships’ company, violence between/among same-side personnel is tolerated. For example, in the front lines, if a man hits another man to, “wake him up” from a daze, it is accepted. If anyone does that to a woman behind the front lines, it is unacceptable.

As such, the spearhead has less protection than the spearshaft. The frontline is the most corporal/martial, and the support line is less corporal/martial–more civilian.

If one observes men and women walking hand-in-hand, one will notice that overwhelmingly, the senior gender, the male holds the female hand from the front so he is break-away-attached to her so he can run into harm’s way. He is the senior gender: she is the junior gender by way of responsibilities–she is the senior gender by way of rights and he is the junior gender by way of rights (to protection).

In parallel, when children walk hand-in-hand, the older is in the front/younger in the back. When a larger person is joined hand-in-hand with a smaller person, the larger one is in front and the smaller one in the back. I’ve observed this extensively on the job(s) as well as by way of walking extensively in shopping centres observing couples.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Rock September 18, 2013 at 06:37

Being White isn’t a full time job

There are flaws here. White people are 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide than blacks, more likely than any other major group in the country to suffer major depression and mental illness and have the lowest self-esteem of any major group. To me this indicates that the “success” of whites comes at a price and is actually a “full time job”.

Consider that the Amish have a suicide rate half that of the general population and a lower rate of depression.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
keyster September 18, 2013 at 09:43

When people who are half white, half black, systematically put themselves in the category of black, it is clear which is the category of privileged people that everybody tries to belong to.

When transexuals are overwhelmingly male to female, we also know. This is why feminists are so anti-transexual. The male to female transexual realizes a new found power never known before as a male; the power (and illusion) of female sexuality. The female to male transexual becomes just another one of the guys, and with a deformed, barely functional penis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11
Rocky September 18, 2013 at 13:59

When people who are half white, half black, systematically put themselves in the category of black, it is clear which is the category of privileged people that everybody tries to belong to.

That is because from waaaayyyyy back (even before one drop rule), whites have established whiteness as being based on non-mixed/pure European indigenousness and this is engrained in the psyches of most people. So a person who is 50% white and 50% black would, through this long socialization, feel ridiculous proclaiming his or herself white and would be seen as ridiculous by others, including whites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
gender foreigner September 18, 2013 at 16:24

Dear Rock September 18, 2013 at 06:37:

Thanks for your post. In 2008, I systematically read a series of studies about the matter (as part of the books’ research). Collective cultures have lower suicide rates than individualist ones. What is called, “Western individualism” is not that at all any more than being a, “Yankee” is being a synonym for being American.

Both of the above terms are used too widely. In the case of the ethnicities, northern Europe (Germanic) is more individualist than southern Roman Europe. In the north, “I” is more common than in the south which uses, “We” which is more common than in the north. (Here, I would point out that ETHNIC determinants were much responsible for the, “Protestant Reformation” than were religious determinants.) And, the maleness of the reformers was much more a determinant than religious determinants, also.

The whiter the skin, the more suicidal by way of being a coincidental between race and ethnic culture.

Similarly, being male is much more individual than female. As such, the less connectedness of the male is associated with higher suicide… As such, the individualist Germanic Male is the most individualist by way of a double whammy and he can disassociated with the group doubly more easily than, say, the Romantic Female.

The religious collectivity of the Germanic Protestants makes connectedness much more common for the male as he experiences his role while being in contact with others in their roles.

The price for male/Germanic ingenuity is higher suicide and higher depression (which studies show are associated with higher inventiveness).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Dire Badger September 19, 2013 at 00:48

@Gender Foreigner-
Of course, the systematic violence and involuntary servitude of white males in western countries has a bit to do with suicide rates as well. It is not entirely about individuality and ingenuity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Opus September 23, 2013 at 08:33

White Privilege (and White Male Privilege) is merely ‘Privilege Phlogiston’. It is also an example of the Apex Fallacy (some white people are rich therefore so are all). It is a common fallacy. It is however perhaps better to be thought superior even when one is not for when your opponent realises that you (the privileged white male) is anything but, he will mock and belittle you. As you are going to be abused in each case you might as well assume the superiority so that your opponent feels worse about himself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Giovanni Dannato September 24, 2013 at 04:44

Rather than searching for a new position to defend, force them to defend.
As others have pointed out, holing up in a new fortress is just another iteration of the same mistake.

Ask them for specifics: At what precise point is equality restored and gender/affirmative action policies in good conscience be scrapped, having performed their function?

If they betray a total lack of ability to define their goals, can they still bill themselves as righteous warriors for great justice?

If they point out that these policies continue because they have not yet succeeded:
Ask “Will they succeed? Are they succeeding?”
If not ask why they are so attached to an approach that isn’t working.

Even if they respond that it’s not working because they’re being “held back” the burden is still on them to consider more effective tactics to achieve their vague “goals.”

Sadly, this kind of approach is likely to instigate knee jerk resentment, but at least it is fairly likely to shut them down rather than encourage them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Brainiac September 24, 2013 at 16:44

There is no scientifically valid evidence that proves white privilege even exists. This racist concept was popularized by Peggy McIntosh in her (out of print) book, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” She is a Marxist and simply transferred Marx’s class conflict model to race and gender relations. Marx said that the “bourgeoisie” must enjoy a privileged and powerful position as owners of the means of production and are therefore able to ruthlessly exploit workers. Ms. McIntosh merely replaced the words “bourgeoisie” with White or White Male and workers with non-white and/or female. Thus, White Privilege is inherently Marxist. Of course, we all know that Marxism is a philosophy that was used to murder over 100 million people (See: http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380066044&sr=8-1&keywords=black+book+of+communism) in the last century.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Social Ordure October 13, 2013 at 19:31

To believe in “white privilege” you have to believe in white supremacy. “White privilege” asserts that any society constructed by white people will be built for the sole purpose of benefitting white people and that a racial minority would be entirely incapable of breaching this system regardless of physical strength, mental ability, work ethic, talent, etc., unless white people concede power and privilege.
Essentially what these people are saying is that white people have been able to successfully operate a system of organized oppression for at least the last 237 years (here in the States), unchallenged, and that racial minorities aren’t even capable of challenging their rule. That sounds like white supremacy to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Dignitary November 22, 2013 at 09:42

It is true that all white people do not benefit from white privilege and that some non-white people do benefit from white privilege. But to deny that it exists and has existed for thousands of years, before the first slave was brought over to the Americas, is an effort at self-delusion that I find myself completely incapable of. If other races have risen up to begin persecuting whites which may be partly true–then it is inherently justified after all those centuries of colonialism and imperialism that robbed African and Latino and Asian countries of their natural resources and human capital. To say white privilege doesn’t exist and that whites do not benefit from a systematic brainwashing of all people’s everywhere is to ignore and preclude historical context. It is good for me to know what my enemy is thinkin that I may be prepared to defeat Jim.
By the year 2020, white people will be the minority in this country an they will finally get a TRUE taste of the horrors and injustice and the evil burden that Black people have endured for centuries. Delusions of superiority will soon be routed out which will surely help Blacks and Latinos to overcome the societal and mental protections that claim them to be lesser due to an historical hegemony that enslaved conscripted and dehumanized them. I do not wish the same on anyone, but when whites become the minority in this country we the informed will call it KARMA baby!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Keevo December 19, 2013 at 21:44

Women and minorities have the privilege of absolute victim power. They are actually perceived as victims of having been “excluded from combat” and white males as the beneficiaries of being sent into it. Think about it, I mean seriously, imagine if it were the other way round. Political correctness is pure insanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
DWT December 22, 2013 at 05:17

Here is where I think the problem lies. Some people who are 1st generation college graduates and/or come from a background of poor or lower middle class parents, are using white privilege as an excuse as to why they can’t succeed.

The difference is in the culture, not race. They truly believe that because it is harder for them, mostly financially, that it is because other the color of their skin. I can tell you for a FACT, being a 1st generation college grad, it was hard. I was not raised in a family that had an education. I had to struggle without support from my family and friends, to make it through. Was it harder, yes. Did have to do with race, no. It was simply because of my socio-economic background. Others don’t have to worry about that 40,000 dollars they spent on college. They didn’t struggle as hard, because their parents could afford tutors. They had a better grade school education as well.

This had NOTHING to do with my race, I was white, I had NO privilege at ALL. But man, it was hard, leaving my trashy family behind, in order to make my life better. All the low life, drunken, drug addicts all around me. I had to give up everything I had ever known, BUT I DID IT. I did it for myself, and hopefully my children. It left me 40,000 dollars in the whole, but it was a LARGE price to pay to be among the “privileged”. I not only grew apart from my entire family, but now have a financial burden to overcome. —–this is what most people are not willing to do, and so they call it “white privilege” and scream and moan about it. The black culture is inherently disadvantaged with this, due to their strong cultural tribal background. Family is everything to them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lee February 3, 2014 at 11:43

I read all of the comments and enjoyed the majority of them. White people will be the minority in America by 2040 and we will finally see how bad the multicultural model truly is. It’s unfortunate that it takes that much to “get it”, but I suppose people are idealistic. As Dignitary said, “karma” will occur, and why on earth would any sane White person look forward to that? Incidentally, karma is the incorrect term because it is untrue that non-Whites are worse off because of White people. At no point in their evolutionary history did they have things BETTER than when they were surrounded by “White Privilege”. For instance, compare the life of a non-White living in Sweden, Germany, or Canada to the life of a non-White person living in Detroit, LA, New Orleans, or Sudan. Indeed, the most efficient way to determine how good the quality of life a non-White person, specifically a Black person, is, is to determine how White the area is in which that person is living. Non-Whites are treated far better by White people than they are ever treated by their own respective races and if you want to see the areas where non-Whites have it the worse off, look no further than areas where they have the most political power. As for conquering other people, all groups did this, White people were simply better at it. To simply be better at something that all groups engaged in is not something to be ashamed of.

Lastly, even as Whites dwindle to minority status, they will maintain the most wealth in both per-capita and absolute terms, as is the case in Brazil and all of Latin America. And without being in the majority, it will grow increasingly harder to blame all the failings of non-Whites on White people. But I’m sure that will still happen. If I wasn’t a White male, I would most likely be jealous of them too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Skyy February 24, 2014 at 16:00
Anonymous March 17, 2014 at 02:24

Is there any Scientific Evidence supporting the theory of “White Male Privilege”?…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
FJ in Denver May 27, 2014 at 10:43

KEYSTER – Where do you come to the conclusion that we are all of equal intelligence? Science has shown anything but this. Your claim here is a political philosophical one which you assume without a shred of basis that it translates into the scientific arena.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Aaron June 16, 2014 at 15:09

The clincher seemingly befalls on the premise that the ONLY way privilege is experienced is to use it to ones advantage, hence privilege. And this is undoubtedly the truth; it serves absolutely NO PURPOSE to posses something you are entirely oblivious, aren’t able to access if you did, in fact, accept this premise, and (biggie here) fails to recognize ALL other variables of which are purportedly devoid: meaning, all it takes is ONE LOUSY disqualifier to debunk this assertion; and that there are too many to reasonably satisfy the criteria. Not all whites are privileged; there are blacks that are privileged; the adscititious factor of money is, indeed, the prelude to a more solid foundation of privilege.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Aaron June 16, 2014 at 15:13

Just as a higher percentage of whites possessing economic advantages via social construction is no more incipient than an influx of churches being built per square mile is indicative of God’s existence, we must always remember to implement the inherent spirit of the meaning of privilege, far superseding the denotative meaning, when sincerely arriving to a quantifiable conclusion revealing to whom privilege solidly applies. This is a socially constructed– and often accepted without critical thinking– paradigm of the unequal distribution of wealth; isn’t this, after all, what they are really trying to assert? Absolutely, but this still won’t ever prove the color of your skin secures this maligned, and often misapplied concept, and in any context.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Aaron June 16, 2014 at 15:25

Many folks are oftentimes carelessly misapplying the meaning of privilege to satisfy their own accommodating bias; their political and personal predilections will always preclude their abilities to arrive to a more informed, and reasonable, concision. The myth of white privilege is purportedly implemented to encompass everything under the sun; to achieve a pure sense of certainty as to the drive behind the inherent evil of whites. Whatever happened to incorporating the spirit behind the concept (the meaning, please?) prior to reaching what it sincerely entails? The best case scenario if this myth is, indeed, fortuitous enough to become a theory, resides in what in the hell do all “privileged” white folks do with it: what does it matter, anyway, if it’s true? After all, the vast differences of wealth distribution (uh-oh, the adscititious factor of money again!!!) most definitely encompasses all whites. So I kid. Unless whites are superior to all other races (has anybody noticed the exclusion of Asians in these debates?) this will still be a solid presumption of mythical proportions. So now I digress. There really nothing to debate here, if you think about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Achilles July 17, 2014 at 09:46

RESEARCH

“Through education rooted in love and justice, World Trust is a catalyst for racial equity.” – http://world-trust.org/

Is World Trust an ANTI-WHITE organization?

VIDEO: Mirrors of Privilege: Making Whiteness Visible – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KYJl0PECv8

PLEASE REVIEW:

E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE

MY QUESTIONS:

Which ethnic communities does White Privilege apply to?

Does White Privilege apply to Ethnic Europeans in Europe? What other parts of the world does this theory apply?

Does White Privilege apply to Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel? Or Jews in the Diaspora?

WORLD TRUST ANSWERS:

Hello,

The context varies a little depending on where you are. The film focuses on white Americans of European decent. Likewise, it can apply to ethnic Europeans in Europe and the other groups you mentioned. If you haven’t seen Mirrors of Privilege, you can “rent” the film from our website for a one-time streamed viewing.

Thank you,

Rhummanee Hang
Administrative Coordinator
World Trust Educational Services, Inc.
Social Impact through Film & Dialogue

office: 510-632-5156
fax: 510-635-5540
http://www.world-trust.org

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: