1416
degree in bamf
(mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1416 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
11426 readers
2566 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the "western" world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what's called colloquially, "mansplaining". He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn't a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they're right and whoever they're talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn't both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don't subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I'm not sure if that was your intent, that's just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I'm a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn't in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn't inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what's called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here's the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I'm in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won't change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That's the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren't the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn't the way it is is just silly.
Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you're ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.
I say this because I didn't read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3
I think the generalization isn't really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it's not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don't look like them, they might think you are not empowered.
Don't let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.
I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I'd hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.
And for anyone who thinks I'm overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.
If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.
I still don't see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don't really care, just found it slightly annoying.
Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn't because of the illusion created by the society they live in.
I'd have added "(born) middle-class" because that's an important part of it too.
Citation needed.
In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.
But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.
In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.
It's also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.
https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf
Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :
Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes "please don't say mean things about my group" bullshit.
That's not my main argument, it's merely a supporting clause.
OP asserted that
I countered that by pointing out that it's obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That's my main argument.
And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.
I obviously can't definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don't need to. I'm not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I'm merely pointing out that it's a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.
Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that's a fair point, but it doesn't really hold any ethical implications, it's simply a description of a material reality.
If this is your main argument then:
Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious? I still stand by that it's not really relevant so I'll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.
I'll repeat something I said in another comment:
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.
I'm sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I'm gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.
Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.
If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you're not being honest with yourself, let alone me.
What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn't crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I'm just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.
In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It's the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.
The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So.... Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks
It has nothing to do with subjugation, it's just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I'm not subjugating other people by doing so.
But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It's not humans, it's the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.
Honestly that last paragraph just doesn't mesh with everything else you said. What on earth are your beliefs?
Normally, I only comment when i have something to add, but I just want to commend you for your high quality contribution to this sensitive topic.
Really learning a lot from this. Your arguments are solid and your phrasing is respectful. Thank you!
That's really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!
Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going "but they're allowed it's not fair!!!"
By calling out dominant race they imply that those silent on race are talking about a minority
Only if you ignore reality.
Isn't she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the "prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her" part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
It's a reminder than people that have always been in a privileged position often don't realize they do.
What privilege applies here?
Did you drop a /s? This is a funny meme, so I'm assuming I just missed a joke.
Right?
(Speaking as a white male, white male entitlement, and privilege for that matter, are incredibly relevant to white men being sexist/racist.)
(You can trust me on this because I'm a white male. Also, I'm used to my opinion being listened to, so I expect you to as well. Just FYI.)
Nope, I wasn't sarcastic, I was slightly annoyed, annoyed enough to make rhe comment but not to maje a huge deal about it.
To emphasize the privilege this guy has.
Exactly.
It's an American obsession.
You're right, racism doesn't exist outside of America
In the US it's all about skin colour
Being white is a huge risk factor for unearned confidence. So is male. Being both just multiplies the chances.
Wow! This is like saying that if someone owns an axe, they are more likely to be a serial killer. If they also have rolls of black garbage bags, then its even more likely ...
That's such a straw man. You would have no trouble saying that if someone doesn't have an axe they are less likely to be an axe murderer
Sorry - what do you mean?
The fact that someone owns an axe and garbage bags, does nothing to their likelihood of them being a murder, just like being white and/or a male has nothing to do with the "risk of unearned confidence".
Or even the gender?
Edit: so... based on the downvotes this gets, its not OK for a male to interrupt but if it had been a female or other gender, then it would have been ok?
Male and Female aren't genders, they're Sex, Words used to describe biological makeup of a living creature, for example XX Chromosomes are Female, XY Chromosomes are Male, but there are also instances where XXY Chromosomes can happen, and things get a little tricky.
Gender is what we use to tell children how to behave based on their genetalia and cause dysphoria in them when they don't want to do something but will get ostracized for doing what people with the other genetalia do.
Thanks. Its a bit confusing to me especially as a none English user. But your description of gender sounds negative. I assume a gender can be a neutral description of oneself? I am not sure.
My point here though is, that OP mentioning it was a male, is as irrelevant as their skin color. I dont see why it needs to be there when they dont add other irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, age, hair color etc.
You know when the right looks at the left and calls us batshit? Your comment is shit they point to...
What's batshit about it? As a society we do exactly that, we tell boys to like blue and girls to like pink.
There’s a lot more to sex than chromosomes. It’s probably better to say it’s clustering of positions on bimodal curves of traits. And even then you wind up with weird shit because biology really doesn’t like simple classifications. Like seriously there are so fucking many ways to be intersex and intersex people are downright common.
But also grammatically male and female when used to refer to humans are generally just the adjectives for man and woman.
Also the gender?
You can’t be racist against white, duh
Edit: nobody realized this was sarcasm
It is just mentioned. Just a description of what happened. What's wrong about saying it was a white male when it was a white male? Why jump to the opinion that mentioning the gender or complexion has any other purpose than being descriptive?
What's wrong about just mentioning it was a post doc asking the question?