list examples if it does?

If it doesn't how can you tell?

I'm on the side of Dr Tommy Curry.

https://imixwhatilike.org/2017/07/06/dr-tommy-curry-man-not/

.

priv·i·lege
noun
1. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.


Athletics takes work. Gotta give ourselves credit here.

yanked first?

and exclude the Celtics, Spurs and Jazz from this convo lol

...we have a grip of privileges. Shout-out to the Sun in July. And catch me if you can like the gingerbread man.

I'm assuming the OP was talking about unnatural, unearned privileges (like police profiling).

and sometimes art

are born naturally to be bigger(taller) muscular and train that natural athletic skill to the point where people want to pay millions of dollars to see it and that is privileged?

I like sports tho I don't want to see women playing basketball I barely wanna see men playing basketball but is that really a privilege?

Were these opportunities handed to them because they are tall lanky and can jump high?

I'm privileged to reach the end zone and get my 6


I'm joking....

kinda


but yeah...

sports wise we have some advantages (which I define as privileges)that can't be taught

and worked on since you were in grade school ain't privilege. If this was basketball you would have fouled out with all that reaching.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

?

.

Most of the time the "scary black man" thing is detrimental tho sometimes it helps

importance or significance in social pecking order?

That's the young boy electrocuted in SC right? Real talk that story and ones like it or "worse" are why I think black people who join law enforcement are fools and America deserves to burn

such a classic.

I met this one Black cop in high school. Cool dude (until I found out he was a cop lol)... I thought it was so cool to even be building with an "old head" (dude was probably early 30's but that was OLD to me as a teen lol) anyways....

But we were talking hip hop and that's how I found out he was a cop... we were talking about KRS One and he was like "That was one of my favorite rappers until he made that Black Cop trash"
I was like "Damn, why??"
Then he dropped the bomb.... :(

I was like "Ahight den..." and rolled out.
Never saw the big homie again....

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

We get the honor of police escorts around town from time to time in the form of being pulled over and encouraged to discuss news in the community.

Those of us in primarily caucasian work environments get the honor of anger management testing every time a coworker says some coded racist stuff and we have to force ourselves to not respond appropriately.

Some of us have the privilege of being escorted out the club for dressing too much like a criminal.

Some of us have the privilege of answering common questions all the time like "do you know where I can buy some weed?.

You see ^^ all these privileges and think that's wonderful right? The best privilege is the fear. That's right fear. It can be 8 PM on a well lit street and people will clutch their belongings tightly and run away from you out of fear. This fear extends to all aspects of nonverbal interaction as you navigate different environments.

This sounds like a question Charlemagne would ask Alt Right Andy.

thats the first part


the second part is more with using white folks desire to see some of us succeed - I forget who wrote this or where I read about this but its kind of playing into white guilt and using it as leverage

that's about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege

priv·i·lege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.


It described a state of being to a certain extent ("For instance, in commerce, male dominance in the ownership and control of economic capital and other forms of wealth has led throughout history to men having more influence over the working classes and the hiring and firing of employees."), but without any context as to HOW the men got that "dominance."

As Mutua's quote states in my reply to you below:

"When intersectionality was applied to black men, it was initially interpreted to suggest that “black men were privileged by gender and subordinated by race;” that is, black men sat at the intersection of the subordinating and oppressive system of race (black) and the privileged system of gender (men). Intuitively this notion seemed correct. It also seemed to support the dominant social and academic practice of examining the oppressive conditions that black men faced from a racial perspective. Yet, the interpretation of black men as privileged by gender and oppressed by race appeared incorrect in our observations of racial profiling."

My response to your lack of reading, below, cites more examples:

Black men are ALSO victimized based on their gender, as white patriarchy operates according to "hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics. The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of Black boys into special ed.

Black men can have male privilege and be subject to gendered racism.

I read your essay, by the way. You'll have to forgive the misunderstanding I made below, as I'll forgive the general lack of clarity.

have privilege?

Is it due to being out numbered by Black women?

Or maybe it is the higher unemployment rate?

Should I touch on the school to prison pipeline?

Or are they privileged because they will go to jail loose gun and drivers license for child support?

Where does this black male supremacy rare its head? I can only think of one instance and it's filled with women.

>Black men can have male privilege and be subject to gendered
>racism.


The thing tho, is that no one can really name
any Black male privilege. It's statistically
absent in all counts. If Black men are privileged,
in our society, then privilege really is a useless
discourse, as violence against Black men has reached
genocidal levels. I do get the whole "there are
areas in which you have benefits no one has" angle,
but as stated elsewhere, I feel such talk is a
distraction from important issues and only served
white people in turning the responsibility on the
victims of racism. When you're looking at a
people being systemically murdered, what good is
it doing to tell them to check their privilege
because films are based on violence? That's
absolutely absurd.


>I read your essay, by the way. You'll have to forgive the
>misunderstanding I made below, as I'll forgive the general
>lack of clarity.

Respect.

I could walk thru somebody hood, though not affiliated myself and not be sweated.

I don't think the same would apply to my white counterpart.

I was having a discussion about this elsewhere with some people pushing pop culture intersectional arguments.
A great deal of the academic work done on this subject was stuff Dr. Curry cites either as he speaks or in the book. That book is extremely dense with study and information. If anyone here hasn't read it, I strongly recommend it. I got it about a month before it was slated to be release due to a very early pre-order.

Here are my thoughts on privilege... much of which Dr. Curry has pointed out before:

1)As you may know, the language of Privilege has been around since the days of WEB Dubois in roughly 1903. However, when a white woman starts to talk about it, suddenly it's all the rave. This is very common within institutions. Black scholars talk about something for years, and as soon as a white voice comes along saying THE EXACT SAME THING, it's considered valid. This is the case with Tim Wise as well who gives you ideas taken from scholars as early as the 19th century such as T. Thomas Fortune or even Malcolm X.
2)Privilege discourse is largely about white people's feelings and more importantly, deflection from the original privilege discourse. When we examine Peggy McIntosh's professed reasoning for adopting the idea, it was because she was accused of being oppressive to work with even though she felt she was a "nice person." Her invocation of the language of privilege finds her looking to get the heat off of white people for their participation in a system which disenfranchises non-white people by claiming that it's not just white people and that EVERYBODY has privilege. The most ridiculous thing about a McIntosh-inspired white privilege discourse is that it doesn't require white people to divest themselves of any privilege by making their own lives as contingent as that of, say, a black man or trans person in a white patriarchy. In other words, my life is the basis on which I interact with American society. White people do not experience that contingency, and they don't want to, because their lives are the basis of both their own privilege AND the contingency of mine. White privilege says "well whiteness is just one of many privileges, LOOK AT YOURSELF", and in that way it is a deflection and a way of turning the responsibility back on the victim. For those reasons, it's disingenuous and dishonest in its claim to fight against racism.

Here's what I had to say about intersectionality:

Athena Mutua states: "...intersectionaly is an outgrowth of black feminist thought and was developed initially to explain, explicate, and make visible black women�s experiences. It suggested that black women were not simply subjected to a system or social structure of racial oppression, but were also subject to the social institution of sexism. Black women, presumably unlike black men or white women were subject not to one, but to two or more social regimes of subjugation. In suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim about identity. It claimed that(initially some) identities were shaped, affected, and perhaps constructed by, as well as, sat at the very intersection of these multiple crisscrossing subordinating structures."

This is why I find black men to be the best group to illustrate why intersectional logic is false or insufficent, independent of the fact that I am a black man.

It would be fine if intersectionality stuck solely with addressing issues of black women and called itself "black women's studies." The problem is that it classified only black women as existing at an intersection of gender and race; in doing so, it posits that black men are privileged by gender and is therefore false and dangerous, as that notion is disproven in every area of life we study. "The Man-Not" by Tommy J Curry does a great job of expounding on this point. Also, the work of R.W. Connell (a transgendered professor), which studied the idea of hegemonic masculinity, is clear that racialized males are attacked by hegemonic masculinity as they are seen as threats. Mutua states: "One of the first significant critiques or expansions of the intersectional idea was the notion that structures of race and gender did not simply intersect but mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce, and constitute one another."

Mutua also states: "(multidimensionality) employs intersectionality to analyze a given intersectional point in the context of multidimensional identities and structures. However, the analyst needs information about the structure and needs to know not only that the structure exists, but how it operates."

The final part about "how it operates is extremely important, as that information explains why "male privilege" doesn't apply to black men in a white patriarchy.

Multidimensionality was necessary as a separate discipline, because intersectionality tends to view "gender" as being synonymous with female. This is the main reason I find intersectional logic lacking. Intersectionality was found to be somewhat inadequte to capture the complexity of women's lives but even more inadequate regarding men since it failed to fully address internal and external rankings, for instance. Legal scholars of all identifications, including transgender, participated in developing Multidimensionality, which ecompasses and compensates for the shortcomings of intersectionality.

With that said, every time a claim is made that ONLY black women and trans people occupy an intersection of race and gender, it is another denial of the gendered racism that black men face. This is why it's offensive. While many scholars have critiqued the insufficiency of the initial phases of intersectionality and expanded upon it, pop culture references to it still call back to the limited scope of its origin in that it pretends black men are privileged by virtue of being men, even though this is both historically and presently false. As a matter of fact, the intersection of blackness and maleness leaves black men with no privilege at all as white patriarchy targets racialized males for extermination, especially black men. This simply is not arguable. And that's not ME playing oppression olympics; that's me asking that others stop doing so at the expense of black men. Furthermore, term "gendered racism" refers to the unique discrimination against black men, because the term "sexism" was generally accepted to refer to discrimination against women. This term was first used due to the extremely disproportionate rates of racial profiling experiences by black men. This is yet another reason why black men can't be divorced from the discussion of these subjects AND why male privilege doesn't apply to black men. Identity politics are born from these previously mentioned misconceptions and reliance on title 7 which only classified white woman as minorities in fear of the progress of black people. By adopting such politics, we end up with terms like "most marginalized" as if we're in competition with one another, due to some trying to center identities for attention rather than the acquisition of material rights. Identity politics cause us to lose focus

you broke this shit down to the angstrom.

I have made this explanation in a much more simple way but it turns into like you said the oppression Olympics and you cant speak on gender issues as male.

>1)As you may know, the language of Privilege has been around
>since the days of WEB Dubois in roughly 1903. However, when a
>white woman starts to talk about it, suddenly it's all the
>rave. This is very common within institutions. Black scholars
>talk about something for years, and as soon as a white voice
>comes along saying THE EXACT SAME THING, it's considered
>valid. This is the case with Tim Wise as well who gives you
>ideas taken from scholars as early as the 19th century such as
>T. Thomas Fortune or even Malcolm X.

Either the discourse of privilege was always silly, even when Du Bois and Malcolm engaged in it, or it's not silly. You can't have it both ways. White people acknowledging it now doesn't change the veracity of the concept.

>2)Privilege discourse is largely about white people's feelings
>and more importantly, deflection from the original privilege
>discourse.

See above.

>Here's what I had to say about intersectionality:
>
>Athena Mutua states: "...intersectionaly is an outgrowth of
>black feminist thought and was developed initially to explain,
>explicate, and make visible black women�s experiences. It
>suggested that black women were not simply subjected to a
>system or social structure of racial oppression, but were also
>subject to the social institution of sexism. Black women,
>presumably unlike black men or white women were subject not to
>one, but to two or more social regimes of subjugation. In
>suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim
>about identity. It claimed that(initially some) identities
>were shaped, affected, and perhaps constructed by, as well as,
>sat at the very intersection of these multiple crisscrossing
>subordinating structures."
>
>This is why I find black men to be the best group to
>illustrate why intersectional logic is false or insufficent,
>independent of the fact that I am a black man.
>
>It would be fine if intersectionality stuck solely with
>addressing issues of black women and called itself "black
>women's studies." The problem is that it classified only black
>women as existing at an intersection of gender and race; in
>doing so, it posits that black men are privileged by gender
>and is therefore false and dangerous, as that notion is
>disproven in every area of life we study.

How you acknowledge that black women are subject to "two social regimes of subjugation," race and gender, but don't recognize that black men's exemption from that gender subjugation is a motherfucking privilege?

cuz I sure as fuck don't.

and I don't have the time to post in circles.

But you're cosigning AND namecalling as if
the two of you aren't the ones demonstrating
a severe lapse of intelligence.
Yall are something else.

As in know from reading, research, and work they do professionally or within their communities

You post in ways where you assume the arguments you make are original, valid, or interesting. Meaning that others haven't heard them before.

There is truth and reason in what you say. Word and work that was done and legitimated by Black men and women who were straight, gay, bi and trans since reconstruction, but it's limited and stuck in a framework that died with the Black nationalism of the 70s.

There is no need to type another essay. We get your position. We don't believe or agree with it.

You never have any decent rebuttal to anything...
just a bunch of namecalling, so I'm not sure
where you get off claiming to know anything
that you've yet to express.
Beyond that, you're projecting, as your own
viewpoints are often stuck in the 70s along
the lines of Wallace's theory of Black male
mimesis (which even she admitted was flawed).
If my views are what you claim, then cite the
proof that you know what you're talking about.
You never do that, because you never know anything.
The most I've seen you do is make a long list of
feminist authors you claim to have read, but
you can't even cite any of the work.
So you either didn't read it, it was useless
info, or you didn't understand it... this
is according to your own lack of intelligent
contribution to any discussion.

And yes, I'll continue to type out discussion
on this discussion board. If that burns your
soul slowly, then you're in the wrong place.

lol

A few hyper emo and insults aside.

Black men are still men. If we are looking for the answer to this question, look no further than the right to vote. Who got it first in this country? Why?

poll tax?

On top of that the state sponsored terrorism committed by police kkk and other white racist organizations?

that once the Black man received the right to vote it was all smooth criminal. My point is simply that the "male" aspect of being a Black male comes with a privilege. It comes with hell also but that wasn't the question in the OG post.

I'm all for a nuanced conversation and appreciate the attempt to have one here. It just seemed that in the posts I read cats who were of the opinion that Black men have privilege were catching heat. Maybe it's passion but it kinda weighs the conversation to one side.

Voting rights and the fact that black males were on paper by law granted the right to vote but we understand from clear historical analysis that those laws were without government backing and pretty much toilet paper in validity of documenting Black male privilege.

I'm still looking for this Black male privilege and honestly only one institution can suffice to valid it in my opinion and no one has named it here.

Here is a hint it's biggest supporters are women and a lot of homosexual (dl) men.

Especially considering that the idea of Black men "being men" has been addressed in reasoning why maleness affects us completely differently in a white patriarchy.

Here are some quotes from elsewhere in the post.
I'd like to know what you think of them since you are literally cosigning someone who's namecalling.

"Black men are also victimized on the basis of gender by white patriarchy"

"One of the first significant critiques or expansions of the intersectional idea was the notion that structures of race and gender did not simply intersect but mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce, and constitute one another."

^That means that a "privileged" identity (such as maleness) may interact with a "subordinate" identity (such as race), in order to make one even less privileged than holding two "subordinate" identities. This is further explained in the next quote.

"When intersectionality was applied to black men, it was initially interpreted to suggest that “black men were privileged by gender and subordinated by race;” that is, black men sat at the intersection of the subordinating and oppressive system of race (black) and the privileged system of gender (men). Intuitively this notion seemed correct. It also seemed to support the dominant social and academic practice of examining the oppressive conditions that black men faced from a racial perspective. Yet, the interpretation of black men as privileged by gender and oppressed by race appeared incorrect in our observations of racial profiling."


White patriarchy operates according to "hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics. The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of Black boys into special ed.

^^You should enjoy that last bit, since you are taking a look at history with your voting comment. We can go that route if you really want to examine the victimization of Black men throughout. I'm guaranteeing you that the chips will fall on my side of the argument. Is that a challenge you'd like to accept, sir?

Now...
I'm aware that it's very rare for you to type past one line one the boards, so perhaps I should also assume it's rare for you to READ past one line as well. I'm going to ask you to do it anyway. Generally, I've stuck to stats and rather academic discourse in here (aside from the two dismissive white guys), but you cosigned someone who referred to me as a "numbskull," so you've definitely made yourself fair game. It's not very surprising that the one person who did read what I wrote (Ike) came back and said "I don't disagree" and became at least a little more cordial after noticing I'm not namecalling or insulting anyone in my initiation of any discussion... although that would be a VERY easy route for me to take, considering someone in here has actually said I read too much.

I'm not for name calling and really was lending my support to Ike for voicing the other side of the argument. I've read your response to me (and I'm continuing to read through the full post..doing so in between actual work smh) but it reads to me as you are pointing out the many inequities Black men experience in this country. I don't think that cancels out the opportunity for male privilege to exist between the Black man and woman is my point.

I'll continue reading through the post and we can definitely discuss the voting aspect more. I'm not looking to win, but always looking to learn. I'm happy that MUSA made this post just so that we have this conversation.

I'll reply again later when I have more time.

>I'm not for name calling and really was lending my support to
>Ike for voicing the other side of the argument. I've read your
>response to me (and I'm continuing to read through the full
>post..doing so in between actual work smh) but it reads to me
>as you are pointing out the many inequities Black men
>experience in this country. I don't think that cancels out the
>opportunity for male privilege to exist between the Black man
>and woman is my point.
>
>I'll continue reading through the post and we can definitely
>discuss the voting aspect more. I'm not looking to win, but
>always looking to learn. I'm happy that MUSA made this post
>just so that we have this conversation.
>
>I'll reply again later when I have more time.


Cool, to your point about what I seem to be arguing, I go into some detail about that in reply 161. Buddy is making the point that it's a toss up between Black men and women who'll be privileged at any given time. While he and I disagree on some things, I think that's a much better position than the notion that Black men are simply privileged in comparison to Black women (I don't think you can outweigh being targeted for death and elimination from society, and I disagree vehemently with treating it like it's just another disadvantage). However, since that (toss up) is the case, I think that renders the entire discussion rather useless... especially considering the origin of privilege discourse was meant to address white supremacy, but this is just a quick summary. I won't rehash it all here.

*I'm going with the "toss up" notion for the sake of argument, as I'd argue that Black men are less advantaged than Black women according to nearly all empirical statistics, but I don't, because I don't like this idea of Black men and women playing oppression olympics and basically engaging in glorified in-fighting. I simply aim to challenge the notion that Black men are "more privileged" than any other group. Frankly, that's just not true.

>Either the discourse of privilege was always silly, even when
>Du Bois and Malcolm engaged in it, or it's not silly. You
>can't have it both ways. White people acknowledging it now
>doesn't change the veracity of the concept.

I explained the difference in McIntosh's brand of privilege discourse very thoroughly under point 2, beginning where I said her brand is a deflection from original privilege discourse. The only thing I see that I could have said differently was to begin point 2 with "Pop culture privilege discourse" instead of just "privilege discourse." It shouldn't have been difficult to understand either way if it was read though. Do you have a legitimate rebuttal or are you sticking with just not reading?


>How you acknowledge that black women are subject to "two
>social regimes of subjugation," race and gender, but don't
>recognize that black men's exemption from that gender
>subjugation is a motherfucking privilege?


First of all, you're pulling from the quote where Mutua was explaining the CLAIM that intersectionality makes, which is why the next sentence is literally "In suggesting this, intersectionality also made a second claim about identity." 2nd, the overall point I'm making (and the point being raised in that essay) is that Black men are ALSO victimized based on their gender, as white patriarchy operates according to "hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics. The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of Black boys into special ed.

To drive the point home, here's another quote from Mutua's paper:

"When intersectionality was applied to black men, it was initially interpreted to suggest that “black men were privileged by gender and subordinated by race;” that is, black men sat at the intersection of the subordinating and oppressive system of race (black) and the privileged system of gender (men). Intuitively this notion seemed correct. It also seemed to support the dominant social and academic practice of examining the oppressive conditions that black men faced from a racial perspective. Yet, the interpretation of black men as privileged by gender and oppressed by race appeared incorrect in our observations of racial profiling."

That's just a piece. Let alone what you quoted above was her stating the CLAIM of intersectionality, not a belief. Hopefully you read carefully this time.

>I explained the difference in McIntosh's brand of privilege
>discourse very thoroughly under point 2, beginning where I
>said her brand is a deflection from original privilege
>discourse. The only thing I see that I could have said
>differently was to begin point 2 with "Pop culture privilege
>discourse" instead of just "privilege discourse." It
>shouldn't have been difficult to understand either way if it
>was read though. Do you have a legitimate rebuttal or are you
>sticking with just not reading?

Don't blame me for your sloppy generalizations. You dismissed the discourse wholesale as disingenuous without acknowledging the ongoing valid forms of privilege discourse. Yo mistake.

>First of all, you're pulling from the quote where Mutua was
>explaining the CLAIM that intersectionality makes, which is
>why the next sentence is literally "In suggesting this,
>intersectionality also made a second claim about identity."

My mistake. My confusion here spawns from your jumbled "intersectionality vs. multidimensionality" argument which hinges on the baseless assertion that "intersectionality tends to view 'gender' as being synonymous with female." Have fun backing that claim up.

That reductive bullshit is confusing when you go ahead and make intersectio...my bad "multidimensional" arguments like this:

>2nd, the overall point I'm making (and the point being raised
>in that essay) is that Black men are ALSO victimized based on
>their gender, as white patriarchy operates according to
>"hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to
>exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male
>threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics.
>The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the
>American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but
>because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical
>rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of
>Black boys into special ed.

Which I actually agree with. For the most part. Black men being subject to gendered racism (we are) is not proof that we also don't experience male privilege (we do, as evidenced by Black men out-earning Black women by like 8 percent).

>Which I actually agree with. For the most part. Black men
>being subject to gendered racism (we are) is not proof that we
>also don't experience male privilege (we do, as evidenced by
>Black men out-earning Black women by like 8 percent).

Yet Black men tend to work about 20 hrs a week more
than Black women, so even that privilege disappears
when the whole story is taken into account.
Is that the only area you thought Black male privilege
existed or do you have valid ones?

And if we talk wages, Black women were out-earning
us in 47 of 50 of the largest cities by 8% (on average)
by 2008, no doubt due to the targeting of Black boys
for the school-to-prison pipeline, special ed, targeting
of Black male teachers, etc.

It's pretty fascinating that you all can fixate on
this Black male privilege notion through all of this.

ive offerered no comment on any ideas presented here, for obvious reasons

it would be the biggest loophole of all time because white supremacy was created with diffusing the black man in mind, specifically.

Oh, and before anybody starts, a black man being given leeway to perpetuate white supremacy isn't "privilege."

While the value of each groups privilege can be disputed, I think being a black male offers certain advantages that either 1.) privelege them to all other people or 2.) privilege them to certain other groups (e.g., Black Women).


Some of the advantages seem trite but I think they are real. For example, I've had bosses that scream on everyone else in range but would never scream on me. I think part of that was fear of black men. Of course fear of black men is most times the opposite of privilege, in certain settings at certain times it can be worked to a black man's advantage.

I've also seen an advantage of being a black male work out with women. Yeah there are a lot of women women who have no interest in black men but there are also plenty of women who seek out black males.

These are a couple of prilveges and they might not be worth much as compared to say White Male Prilveleges but I'd be lying if I said they didn't exist.

Then there are privileges as compared to other groups like black women. This reminds me of the study that shows "Black Boys Have an Easier Time Fitting In at Suburban Schools Than Black Girls"

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/black-boys-have-an-easier-time-fitting-in-at-suburban-schools-than-black-girls/280657/

This report reminds me how it plays out with adults in professional settings. Some times it's a lot easier for a black male to excel in a professional setting versus a black woman (or even a white woman) because they can bond with their white male co-workers or bosses with guy stuff like sports or women. I had a boss who loved talking about women and on some level I could relate with him on it, my female colleagues could not.

Now it isn't a hard and fast rule because I have seen settings in which being a black female or (just female) has benefitted someone like my wife in a corporate setting in a way I couldn't benefit from. That is, I've seen a lot of older guys who prefer to work with and mentor younger (often attractive) women.

Again, not saying there is a hard and fast rule saying a black woman versus a black man has it easier in a corporate setting or vice versa. I am just saying that I can recognozie in certain situations, being a black male has had it's advantages for me, and I have witnessed it certain situations, being a black woman has had it's advantages for women like my wife.

I just find it hard for people to think there aren't any priveleges at all associated with being a black male. I think the starks examples would be looking how men in treated (as compared to women) in more traditional West Indian or African household.

My two cents.






**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

question is the interaction between you and your manager a privilege most or even some Blacks have because they are male?

Academically black males are lagging behind black females and are at a higher risk for expulsion, being placed in learning disabled classes, being left back.

I see that a lot with privilege discourse, but I just wanted to get it out there right quick. I wanna take a look at this article tho.

>"Black Boys Have an Easier Time Fitting In at Suburban Schools >Than Black Girls"
>
>https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/black-boys-have-an-easier-time-fitting-in-at-suburban-schools-than-black-girls/280657/


Before I share my own thoughts, here's a really good counter-article:
http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/07/03/black-boys-fast-tracked-prison-pipeline-classroom-remains-blocked-black-male-teachers/

As for my thoughts on the one you posted...

We recieve social rewards for being considered "ghetto and loud" and were "constrained to enatcing race and gender in narrow ways." What we're talking about here is social control of both Black boys and girls. Neither of these are positives. I find this particularly interesting, because many feminists say that Black men internalize white patriarchal notions as if we are mindless drones, and this article is literally outlining how Black boys are socialized to do so before they even develop into adults. That is being considered a privilege. Absurd.

I think we need to seriously examine the notion that being socialized to be the plantation buck is a privilege. The problem with politics of attention is that the white establishment has always rewarded detrimental behavior among Black people from telling on rebellious slaves to becoming an informant. White society at large has never praised Black people for challenging oppression but will definitely praise us for those things running counter to real collective Black progress or liberation. This is documented fact at this point.

"It was only in the context of the suburban school that their blackness conferred social power. In order to maintain that social dominance, the boys engaged in racial performance, getting into show fights with each other to appear tough and using rough, street language around their friends."

If intersectional feminists are honest, they have to admit that this sort of thing is detrimental and feeds into white patriarchy... white patriarchy that Black boys are literally being socialized to "perform" and internalize BY the white establishment (emphasis on "by the white establishment," because they like to blame Black men for how they are socialized as boys).
The above quote is akin to men saying women are privileged because they get the attention of street harassment in that, sure, it's attention, but it's not a positive. Even if you argue that the boys want the attention, they are CHILDREN, so are we blaming children for their own abuse now?

We have to keep in mind that white patriarchy does focus on Black men TO EXTERMINATE THEM. That's why it kills us so much, infiltrated the Panthers, etc. People tend to conflate this kind of attention with privilege and that's just morally deplorable. The focus on Black men is there to keep us in check, not to benefit us. This is a very important reason I say racism/white supremacy is SOCIAL. This article outlines how Black boys are socialized by their white peers to perform certain roles. The rewards program for being what they want you to be is already in effect. This is how people learn to interact with the world... but why brings positive results and emotions forth from others. Very few of us humans resist that, especially when it begins so early.



>Again, not saying there is a hard and fast rule saying a black
>woman versus a black man has it easier in a corporate setting
>or vice versa. I am just saying that I can recognozie in
>certain situations, being a black male has had it's advantages
>for me, and I have witnessed it certain situations, being a
>black woman has had it's advantages for women like my wife.
>


See, when it's a toss-up as to who will be "privileged" in a certain scenario, I have to wonder what the purpose of the discourse even is. Does that make sense? Not asking to be facetious, I just don't think anyone's really addressing that in light of the fact that pop culture privilege discourse came about as a deflection from white supremacy. Meaning, ok, so we've recognized that certain genders may benefit in certain ways, depending on whether or not a white male boss is a sports freak or a horny creep... but what does this mean? What is the course of action? What is the usefulness of the conversation? In essence, we're dealing with white male privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising, there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply become glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia.

I would consider a privilege.


I also think you oversimplify the socializing of black men versus white men in schools in professional environments. It doesn't have to take the form of "ghetto and loud". Truth is I've never seen it take that form. I've seen it most often taken the form of being in athletics or just plain being cool (and the cool cats from my childhood were not the ghetto and loud type).


You are looking for hard and fast rules which doesn't work. Some scenarios being a black male helps, a lot they don't. Same for being a black female. My point is to recognize when it does help (as well as when it doesn't).

I recognize that my wife has had a certain career success because older white guys who consider themselves liberal love to be able to say they mentor an attractive young smart black woman. I wouldn't take that one example and say black women have it easier in corporate america. But I can recognize she had a privelege that wasn't available to me. I also recognize the many times I could bond over sports or strip clubs with white boys in an office setting that wasn't available to black women in my ofice.

>I see that a lot with privilege discourse, but I just wanted
>to get it out there right quick. I wanna take a look at this
>article tho.
>
>>"Black Boys Have an Easier Time Fitting In at Suburban
>Schools >Than Black Girls"
>>
>>https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/black-boys-have-an-easier-time-fitting-in-at-suburban-schools-than-black-girls/280657/
>
>
>Before I share my own thoughts, here's a really good
>counter-article:
>http://atlantablackstar.com/2017/07/03/black-boys-fast-tracked-prison-pipeline-classroom-remains-blocked-black-male-teachers/
>
>As for my thoughts on the one you posted...
>
>We recieve social rewards for being considered "ghetto and
>loud" and were "constrained to enatcing race and gender in
>narrow ways." What we're talking about here is social control
>of both Black boys and girls. Neither of these are positives.
> I find this particularly interesting, because many feminists
>say that Black men internalize white patriarchal notions as if
>we are mindless drones, and this article is literally
>outlining how Black boys are socialized to do so before they
>even develop into adults. That is being considered a
>privilege. Absurd.
>
>I think we need to seriously examine the notion that being
>socialized to be the plantation buck is a privilege. The
>problem with politics of attention is that the white
>establishment has always rewarded detrimental behavior among
>Black people from telling on rebellious slaves to becoming an
>informant. White society at large has never praised Black
>people for challenging oppression but will definitely praise
>us for those things running counter to real collective Black
>progress or liberation. This is documented fact at this
>point.
>
>"It was only in the context of the suburban school that their
>blackness conferred social power. In order to maintain that
>social dominance, the boys engaged in racial performance,
>getting into show fights with each other to appear tough and
>using rough, street language around their friends."
>
>If intersectional feminists are honest, they have to admit
>that this sort of thing is detrimental and feeds into white
>patriarchy... white patriarchy that Black boys are literally
>being socialized to "perform" and internalize BY the white
>establishment (emphasis on "by the white establishment,"
>because they like to blame Black men for how they are
>socialized as boys).
>The above quote is akin to men saying women are privileged
>because they get the attention of street harassment in that,
>sure, it's attention, but it's not a positive. Even if you
>argue that the boys want the attention, they are CHILDREN, so
>are we blaming children for their own abuse now?
>
>We have to keep in mind that white patriarchy does focus on
>Black men TO EXTERMINATE THEM. That's why it kills us so
>much, infiltrated the Panthers, etc. People tend to conflate
>this kind of attention with privilege and that's just morally
>deplorable. The focus on Black men is there to keep us in
>check, not to benefit us. This is a very important reason I
>say racism/white supremacy is SOCIAL. This article outlines
>how Black boys are socialized by their white peers to perform
>certain roles. The rewards program for being what they want
>you to be is already in effect. This is how people learn to
>interact with the world... but why brings positive results and
>emotions forth from others. Very few of us humans resist
>that, especially when it begins so early.
>
>
>
>>Again, not saying there is a hard and fast rule saying a
>black
>>woman versus a black man has it easier in a corporate
>setting
>>or vice versa. I am just saying that I can recognozie in
>>certain situations, being a black male has had it's
>advantages
>>for me, and I have witnessed it certain situations, being a
>>black woman has had it's advantages for women like my wife.
>>
>
>
>See, when it's a toss-up as to who will be "privileged" in a
>certain scenario, I have to wonder what the purpose of the
>discourse even is. Does that make sense? Not asking to be
>facetious, I just don't think anyone's really addressing that
>in light of the fact that pop culture privilege discourse came
>about as a deflection from white supremacy. Meaning, ok, so
>we've recognized that certain genders may benefit in certain
>ways, depending on whether or not a white male boss is a
>sports freak or a horny creep... but what does this mean?
>What is the course of action? What is the usefulness of the
>conversation? In essence, we're dealing with white male
>privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege
>based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to
>figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising,
>there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply become
>glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>A difference that confers an advantage (at least compared
>to some) I would consider a privilege.
>
>
>I also think you oversimplify the socializing of black men
>versus white men in schools in professional environments.


My comments were on the article YOU posted.
This quote, for instance...

"It was only in the context of the suburban school that their blackness conferred social power. In order to maintain that social dominance, the boys engaged in racial performance, getting into show fights with each other to appear tough and using rough, street language around their friends."

That quote is not about white boys.
It's about black boys, specifically.
So perhaps it's the article that you think is "oversimplifying" the issue.
Maybe you didn't read it? My comments will make more sense after you do, because "ghetto and loud" is also a DIRECT QUOTE from your article.
Here's the quote:

"Diversify girls, on the other hand, “were stereotyped as ‘ghetto’ and ‘loud’”—behavior that, when exhibited by the boys in the program, was socially rewarded."

"Ghetto and loud" is also in the very subtitle of the article.


>You are looking for hard and fast rules which doesn't work.


On the contrary... I'm looking for justification of a search for "Black male privilege" at the exclusion of a search for "Black female privilege." You might say "well I'm not doing that," but this is only being discussed because intersectional theorists posit that ONLY Black women exist at an intersection of gender and race... thereby ignoring the very real gendered racism that Black men experience.
That's why you're lowkey cosigning the continued ignoring of Black male suffering while you think you're having an independent conversation. The very stark difference between their conversation and yours is this: You are saying that everyone has privilege in some area depending on the situation or more specifically, it's a "toss up" between Black men and women who'll be privileged at a given time. THEY are saying that Black men are a privileged group, period, all the time... because they're men and all men are always privileged. In more academic terms, THEY are saying that malehood is always a privileged identity. They don't take into account how adding malehood to the "subordinate" identity of blackness makes it targeted and possibly even less than a subordinate identity like femalehood. THEY would disagree with both of us. Here's why that's important...
You accused us in reply 147 of being "overly academic and philosophical"... but this conversation originates in academic realms and relies on the ignorance of people in order to appeal to them. Why do I say that? Because the facts, data, and history of the situation explain why assertions like "men are always privileged" don't hold up when you look at Black men under white patriarchy. The idea is of male privilege is thought to be "common sense" by some, since this is a patriarchy, but it SHOULD be common sense that Black men experience a gendered racism that has, presently and historically, vastly excluded us from exercising all tenets of "manhood" in a societal context... but this is only common sense for those who READ, hence the "academic and philosophical" rebuttals in here to a "Black male privilege" assertion that PRETENDS to be academic while being anything except that.
You won't know what you're dealing with and how to counter it unless you're "academic and philosophical." You end up cosigning the continued ignoring of the very specific plight of Black males and why it needs to be addressed MUCH more seriously than it is.
The differences in angle of your conversation vs theirs is why I have to deny what you're saying... because what you're saying isn't the pseudo-academic origin of the conversation. What you're saying is that it's all a toss up as to who's "privileged" at any given time, and there would be no "Black male privilege checklist" if the pseudo academics were coming from that angle. This conversation wouldn't even be happening. I actually appreciate that you're saying both parties are "privileged" (even though I think that's a bad term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable theories), but the context HAS to be understood.





>Some scenarios being a black male helps, a lot they don't.
>Same for being a black female. My point is to recognize
>when it does help (as well as when it doesn't).




Again, what is the usefulness of this? You ignored
me asking the first time, so I'm gonna paste this
here. Please respond to the statements and questions
I pose here. If you feel you already have, then just
point me to where:

>>>See, when it's a toss-up as to who will be "privileged" in a
>>certain scenario, I have to wonder what the purpose of the
>>discourse even is. Does that make sense? Not asking to be
>>facetious, I just don't think anyone's really addressing
>that
>>in light of the fact that pop culture privilege discourse
>came
>>about as a deflection from white supremacy. Meaning, ok, so
>>we've recognized that certain genders may benefit in certain
>>ways, depending on whether or not a white male boss is a
>>sports freak or a horny creep... but what does this mean?
>>What is the course of action? What is the usefulness of the
>>conversation? In essence, we're dealing with white male
>>privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege
>>based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to
>>figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising,
>>there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply
>become
>>glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia.
>>

>I actually appreciate that you're saying both
>parties are "privileged" (even though I think that's a bad
>term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable theories), but
>the context HAS to be understood.
>


Adding: bad term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable
theories AND taken from a discourse that was originally
meant to examine white supremacy. As stated elsewhere,
new privilege discourse has diffused the ORIGINAL discourse
to the point of neutrality by applying it to everyone.
It's literally white folks saying "I'm oppressive? But but
we're ALL oppressive!" (McIntosh admitted that)
It's kinda All Lives Matter logic, and I just don't think
Black people need to keep allowing ourselves to be played like this.

I think we are grown-ups and we all know the relative advantages of white male privileges significantly outweigh black male privileges.

I also think people aren't being honest when they say that in certain situations there are advantages to being a black male versus being a black woman.




>>I actually appreciate that you're saying both
>>parties are "privileged" (even though I think that's a bad
>>term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable theories), but
>>the context HAS to be understood.
>>
>
>
>Adding: bad term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable
>theories AND taken from a discourse that was originally
>meant to examine white supremacy. As stated elsewhere,
>new privilege discourse has diffused the ORIGINAL discourse
>to the point of neutrality by applying it to everyone.
>It's literally white folks saying "I'm oppressive? But but
>we're ALL oppressive!" (McIntosh admitted that)
>It's kinda All Lives Matter logic, and I just don't think
>Black people need to keep allowing ourselves to be played like
>this.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I'll take this to mean you're only hearing your
own side of the conversation.

Nothing in that article contradicts my statement that black boys don't have to be "ghetto and loud" to be popular in white settings.

The article gives forms of social behavior that black boys are rewarded for in that environment (and black girls are punished for), but that doesn't equal the rule that the only way black boys are able to fit in in such environments are by being ghetto and loud.

None of this changes my orignal assertion that often times black men have it easier socially in predominately white environments and certianly in predominately white male environments (corporate america).

You say that may be true but it is only by being the plantation buck and I think that's just dead wrong. I don't think Richard Parsons or any of the current few black male fortune 500 CEOS got to where they are by being the plantaion buck.



>>A difference that confers an advantage (at least compared
>>to some) I would consider a privilege.
>>
>>
>>I also think you oversimplify the socializing of black men
>>versus white men in schools in professional environments.
>
>
>My comments were on the article YOU posted.
>This quote, for instance...
>
>"It was only in the context of the suburban school that their
>blackness conferred social power. In order to maintain that
>social dominance, the boys engaged in racial performance,
>getting into show fights with each other to appear tough and
>using rough, street language around their friends."
>
>That quote is not about white boys.
>It's about black boys, specifically.
>So perhaps it's the article that you think is
>"oversimplifying" the issue.
>Maybe you didn't read it? My comments will make more sense
>after you do, because "ghetto and loud" is also a DIRECT QUOTE
>from your article.
>Here's the quote:
>
>"Diversify girls, on the other hand, “were stereotyped as
>‘ghetto’ and ‘loud’”—behavior that, when exhibited
>by the boys in the program, was socially rewarded."
>
>"Ghetto and loud" is also in the very subtitle of the
>article.



















>
>
>>You are looking for hard and fast rules which doesn't work.
>
>
>On the contrary... I'm looking for justification of a search
>for "Black male privilege" at the exclusion of a search for
>"Black female privilege."


I am not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by at the exclusion of a search for "Black female privilege"?

Again, I think everyone has some privelges including black women.




You might say "well I'm not doing
>that," but this is only being discussed because intersectional
>theorists posit that ONLY Black women exist at an intersection
>of gender and race... thereby ignoring the very real gendered
>racism that Black men experience.


Who says this though? Citations please. It all sounds like strawman.

Yeah we know the origins of intersectionality discussions but the idea has caught fire because it gives a framework to discuss all sorts differences like rgw different privileges of black men versus white men versus black women, etc.





>That's why you're lowkey cosigning the continued ignoring of
>Black male suffering while you think you're having an
>independent conversation. The very stark difference between
>their conversation and yours is this: You are saying that
>everyone has privilege in some area depending on the situation
>or more specifically, it's a "toss up" between Black men and
>women who'll be privileged at a given time. THEY are saying
>that Black men are a privileged group, period, all the time...
>because they're men and all men are always privileged. In
>more academic terms, THEY are saying that malehood is always a
>privileged identity. They don't take into account how adding
>malehood to the "subordinate" identity of blackness makes it
>targeted and possibly even less than a subordinate identity
>like femalehood. THEY would disagree with both of us.
>Here's why that's important...
>You accused us in reply 147 of being "overly academic and
>philosophical"... but this conversation originates in academic
>realms and relies on the ignorance of people in order to
>appeal to them. Why do I say that? Because the facts, data,
>and history of the situation explain why assertions like "men
>are always privileged" don't hold up when you look at Black
>men under white patriarchy. The idea is of male privilege is
>thought to be "common sense" by some, since this is a
>patriarchy, but it SHOULD be common sense that Black men
>experience a gendered racism that has, presently and
>historically, vastly excluded us from exercising all tenets of
>"manhood" in a societal context... but this is only common
>sense for those who READ, hence the "academic and
>philosophical" rebuttals in here to a "Black male privilege"
>assertion that PRETENDS to be academic while being anything
>except that.
>You won't know what you're dealing with and how to counter it
>unless you're "academic and philosophical." You end up
>cosigning the continued ignoring of the very specific plight
>of Black males and why it needs to be addressed MUCH more
>seriously than it is.
>The differences in angle of your conversation vs theirs is why
>I have to deny what you're saying... because what you're
>saying isn't the pseudo-academic origin of the conversation.
>What you're saying is that it's all a toss up as to who's
>"privileged" at any given time, and there would be no "Black
>male privilege checklist" if the pseudo academics were coming
>from that angle. This conversation wouldn't even be
>happening. I actually appreciate that you're saying both
>parties are "privileged" (even though I think that's a bad
>term to use, since it's tainted by unprovable theories), but
>the context HAS to be understood.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Some scenarios being a black male helps, a lot they don't.
>>Same for being a black female. My point is to recognize
>>when it does help (as well as when it doesn't).
>
>
>
>
>Again, what is the usefulness of this? You ignored
>me asking the first time, so I'm gonna paste this
>here. Please respond to the statements and questions
>I pose here. If you feel you already have, then just
>point me to where:
>
>>>>See, when it's a toss-up as to who will be "privileged" in
>a
>>>certain scenario, I have to wonder what the purpose of the
>>>discourse even is. Does that make sense? Not asking to be
>>>facetious, I just don't think anyone's really addressing
>>that
>>>in light of the fact that pop culture privilege discourse
>>came
>>>about as a deflection from white supremacy. Meaning, ok,
>so
>>>we've recognized that certain genders may benefit in
>certain
>>>ways, depending on whether or not a white male boss is a
>>>sports freak or a horny creep... but what does this mean?
>>>What is the course of action? What is the usefulness of
>the
>>>conversation? In essence, we're dealing with white male
>>>privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege
>>>based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to
>>>figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising,
>>>there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply
>>become
>>>glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia.
>>>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Nothing in that article contradicts my statement that black
>boys don't have to be "ghetto and loud" to be popular in white
>settings.


And my response was about Black boys being
socially manipulated into the roles that
white people are comfortable with. That
may take many forms, but "ghetto and loud"
was just the example given in the article.


>The article gives forms of social behavior that black boys are
>rewarded for in that environment (and black girls are punished
>for), but that doesn't equal the rule that the only way black
>boys are able to fit in in such environments are by being
>ghetto and loud.



I agree, and my response to the article applies
to any of these forms.



>None of this changes my orignal assertion that often times
>black men have it easier socially in predominately white
>environments and certianly in predominately white male
>environments (corporate america).



Your original assertion was that it's a toss up
between who'll have it easier, depending on the
boss's whims.



>You say that may be true but it is only by being the
>plantation buck and I think that's just dead wrong. I don't
>think Richard Parsons or any of the current few black male
>fortune 500 CEOS got to where they are by being the plantaion
>buck.


I don't mean plantation buck literally. I just
mean whatever white people socially make one into.
One has been socially "whipped into shape" so to speak...
like a plantation buck. The paragraph where I
say the phrase should make that pretty clear.



>>>You are looking for hard and fast rules which doesn't work.
>>
>>
>>On the contrary... I'm looking for justification of a search
>>for "Black male privilege" at the exclusion of a search for
>>"Black female privilege."
>
>
>I am not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by at the
>exclusion of a search for "Black female privilege"?


I already answered this question very thoroughly.


>Again, I think everyone has some privelges including black
>women.


Right, and I said I can at least appreciate that you're
taking that position, even though I find this hijacked
discourse rather senseless and even dangerous.



> You might say "well I'm not doing
>>that," but this is only being discussed because
>intersectional
>>theorists posit that ONLY Black women exist at an
>intersection
>>of gender and race... thereby ignoring the very real
>gendered
>>racism that Black men experience.
>
>
>Who says this though? Citations please. It all sounds like
>strawman.


Who says what? I'll be happy to answer as soon as
you answer my questions that you've twice ignored.
It's not strawman at all, and I've explained why...
very thoroughly at this point.
I got citations throughout the post and even more
if you wanna start treating this like a conversation
and stop talking past me... or you could just read
what I've already written.


>Yeah we know the origins of intersectionality discussions but
>the idea has caught fire because it gives a framework to
>discuss all sorts differences like rgw different privileges of
>black men versus white men versus black women, etc.


That's not true, and I can easily prove it,
but I'm not wasting my time with all the typing,
since you aren't reading it anyway... plus I've
already explained how it's not true.
But let's assume it is true. The problem is
that it doesn't assess how those identities
"mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce,
and constitute one another."

"In essence, we're dealing with white male privilege by accusing his subordinates of having privilege based on his whims. Unless we're having this discussion to figure out our respective positions in a planned uprising, there seems to be no point. The discussion have simply become glorified in-fighting masquerading as academia."

is hammer head on nail. Its so frivolous.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I typed that hoping it would open up another level
of conversation in the thread, but alas...

.

If you genuinely can't think of ONE inherited advantage you have as a male in the context of gender than you are a major player in the oppression olympics and probably have a streak of pathological self-righteousness.

I'll also agree with what Buddy said in that EVERY identity group has advantages and disadvantages (I'm not asserting that they 'equal out'...some groups have more privilege/burden than others in the aggregate).

Privilege rhetoric is an extremely useful analytical tool in sociology. It's also prone to be used for pathological and malevolent ends and can be used as a tool for self-victimization. Again....if you can't think of ONE inherited advantage you have in being male....then either you aren't trying hard enough.....Or you are incapable of seeing yourself as ANYTHING other than a victim which is a very dangerous and self-sabotaging way to see the world.

How many can you name?
Ain't you white?

a pathological self-victimization that is self-sabotaging.

Do you have to worry about walking to the cornerstone late at night if you run out of toilet paper?

When you hear something stir in the other room late at night...do you worry about possibly getting raped?

Do you have to navigate unwanted sexual advances while commuting to work?

Do you need to spend time, money and effort every morning on your general appearance as a condition of your status at work and other social environments?

How much does your barber visit cost?

I could go on.

Black men get shot stabbed robbed killedmore than black women.

Only exception is rape and we dont know the numbers concerning male children but prison rape is a problem.

Lol at price of hair cuts being a privilege.

You really reaching.

So much so.....you gonna ask your wife to make the cornerstore run at 1am?

Women aren't over-represented as victims of crime because they navigate self-explanatory restrictions on their own freedom. Like walking anywhere they want at anytime. Males might also do this in particularly bad neighborhoods....but nothing even close to the extent that females do.

You're empathetic capacity may be lacking. You SHOULD be able to conceive of a change in the things you have to consider if you were a woman. If you can't...there might not be hope lol.

>Do you have to worry about walking to the cornerstore late at
>night if you run out of toilet paper?

I'm trying my best to not confront you and those were YOUR wishes. If we want to open the floodgates I have alot of posting to do tonight.

So we're either passing each other by or I'm head-on confronting and breaking down EVERYTHING you say here. Your choice.

as we'd just be dismissive of one another as usual.

>I'm trying my best to not confront you and those were YOUR
>wishes.

I appreciate it.

...is debatable. At least in this context. Genetics are genetics.


priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/Submit
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.



Of course, in a world of modern weapons, weight training, martial arts, office jobs and the police, the "privilege" of physical size is largely neutralized (in the US, at least).

no one gave a special right for males to have on average more muscle mass taller bodies etc.

Thats like saying women are privileged with carrying children.

I know you are being facetious.

when i walk in a room? all eyes on me. everybody is looking at me. everybody hears me. they notice. they see it. I dominate discussions im in even if im silent. people are legit physically afraid of me so they either wanna fight me (which i can use against them) or the wanna flee (which now i know how to manuever around)

among many other ways.

and i like it.

aint nobody afraid of your Mr Kool-aid shaped captain america negro a$$.

Stop cappin.

The fear of Black men is due to media propaganda and a result of the massive guilt trip this country and it's actually participants/citizens have from taking advantage of Black folk.

if that is the case it doesn't exist.

Three men are not the majority of black males especially the three you named.

did you mean something else?

My man named three rich Black men.

Last I checked the average yearly salary is 30k black males have highest unemployment and underemployment rates.

You named three people who are rich to show all black people who are males have privilege?

Do better.

I misunderstood your question. It wasn't specific enough because i really thought you just wanted examples. as I understand now, the way you're presenting the question...the answer requires only a no answer..

it's an unfair dialogue...

maybe next time make a definitive stupid statement like "Black male privilege doesnt exist" and I'll leave you to your stupidity

You phrased it as a question like you were trying to hash this out

have a great weekend with your stupid ideas

the privilege of being a man despite race in the USA that is shared by all males.

Not rich niggas who have some social standing and power due to finances and even that is laughable.

You named rich men as the example of how all black males have privilege

Are you retarded or slow?

>You named rich men as the example of how all black males have
>privilege
>
>Are you retarded or slow?

not people.

Tyra Banks? Wendy Williams?

Why or why not?

my man named like three of the richest people in the country.

>my man named like three of the richest people in the
>country.

please look up the word privilege and if you cant find a correlation between that and wealth, you're dumber than I thought

or "Black female privilege" for that matter.

It's supposed to be something that applies to all,
or at least a large majority of, people of the
respective group.
Of all groups in our society, wealth is least
likely to belong to Black men and women.
You're talking about anomalies.

This is why Yvette Carnell's take on this is so
important for our people to hear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ285DglGc0#t=2m

Check it out if you have time (it's short).
She broadcasts every week and has done a show
that talked about Oprah and recently Jay-Z.

He's talking specifically about Jay-Z
and 4:44:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SPSc2QwMoY

>Of all groups in our society, wealth is least
>likely to belong to Black men and women.
>You're talking about anomalies.

They were examples of rich Black men.

I only tried to explain the difference to you
and offered other sources in case you found
my explanation was unclear.

but to sort out my examples

Bill Cosby has yet to be found guilty for his crimes
Jay Z cuts big business deals off of his name
Kevin Hart is dominating the comedy film genre

but the money wasn't there when they started their careers.

and if he is it's his wealth and access to good lawyers that is getting him off.

Jay is a famous rapper. How is that any different than Taylor Swift or Rihanna getting a check for their fame?

Kevin is funny and it's not because he is a black male

I really don't see it. For every Bill, Jay and Kev there are thousands of comedians and rappers who are black, male and haven't made it

k.

>Jay is a famous rapper. How is that any different than Taylor
>Swift or Rihanna getting a check for their fame?

this post is about black men, that's how it's different



>Kevin is funny and it's not because he is a black male

he's earned his way into privilege

>I really don't see it. For every Bill, Jay and Kev there are
>thousands of comedians and rappers who are black, male and
>haven't made it

yes, this post is about black males who are privileged. privilege means society treats you more favorably from birth if you're white, it also means society treats you more favorably once you're accomplished and elite as a black person

Did you mean to write that? You are punching holes in your argument.

It has nothing to do with being a black male and everything to do with being talented and/or business savvy.

RE: You said... Once your more accomplished and elite as a black PERSON?
>Did you mean to write that? You are punching holes in your
>argument.
>
>It has nothing to do with being a black male and everything to
>do with being talented and/or business savvy.


nowhere did I say or imply Kevin Hart, Bill Cosby or Jay-Z were privileged because they're black
I said they're examples of (black) (male) privilege

and even they said they can't find it.

We seriously let a white woman completely
diffuse the entire discourse of white
privilege to the point of neutrality by
(inaccurately) applying it to everyone.
We have to do better at knowing when we're being played.

look for dr Thandeka's essay on privilege discourse being a re-inscription of original sin as secular

blacks run around parroting what they been told aint nothing knew im surprised dr tommy curry still got a job

who don't want to challenge the new popular talking point are a problem to me.

I have asked this question three times and only one example qualified and that was the Black Church but even in that church it's main participants/ supporters are women.....

>look for dr Thandeka's essay on privilege discourse being a
>re-inscription of original sin as secular

I checked it out, and I have alotta thoughts on it including some major disagreements, but it was an interesting read. Concerning the original sin observation though, I noticed she pulls that from Joseph Barndt's idea that racism was the original sin from which white's can't free themselves but must look to their "savior" which he, in so many words, names as people of color.. once again, placing the onus on Black folks to teach white people how not to be racist lol. My favorite quote from that section was "Surely the moral passivity advocated by such a theology is one reason why anti-racism programs can claim so few concrete results." Shots fired.
However, I think she's in denial about what racism is, how it works, and permanence of it. Case in point, she quotes an alleged anti-racist who's doing some extensive twisting in order to claim that white people can't fix their own racism AS he turns the responsibility back on PoC. This isn't an unlearned person but an alleged anti-racist, and such acts are very consistent even among them. She says Barndt's ideas run counter to the UU's belief in moral agency, but the white people in the UU are sending her his work. When does she understand white peoples' social commitment to refusing to divest themselves of the "privilege" they receive from the abuse of non-white people (even if she doesn't want to call it privilege)? This is not the commitment and denial of the elites driving this refusal but that of her white colleagues and millions of other white people both domestically and globally.
The reason I disagree with her about racism and how it works is that she seems to think that a white person can consistently commit racist acts but not be a racist, due to the fact that it's a matter of "survival" for them. I think committing acts of racism is racist no matter why it's done. That's how the system works, and that's a really strong part of why I can't dismiss the assertion that all white people are racist. It's a necessity of the system's functioning whether they do it for survival or pleasure. She seems to be describing racism as how people feel inside as opposed to what they do. Here are two quotes from her, in reference to a convo with her friend Dan, to show what I mean:

"being white for Dan was not a matter of racist conviction but a matter of survival, not a privilege but a penalty."
"Dan did not cry during our lunch together in the restaurant because he was a racist. He cried because his impulses to moral action had been slain by his own fear of racial exile."
While these may be important distinctions in trying to understand human psychology, they don't make a difference to those who are affected by "moral action being slain by fear of racial exile" as she put it. Either white people are resisting that at all times, or they're practicing racism... and practicing racism makes one a racist. She claims that accusing them of racism "punishes them for being broken," but it's simply an accurate description... nothing more or less.
What's ironic here, is that she's taking up the very charge that Barndt gave people of color even though she takes shots at that "doctrine of helplessness" earlier on. She's considering it her duty to heal white people who are "broken" by their "slain moral action" and "fear of racial exile." She seems to think that our understanding and consolation will save or heal them as she states "The charge of racism does not heal this condition or even describe it." Neither does lying to them and telling them they can consistently commit acts of racism and not be racist. Only white people ceasing all practice of racism will end racism.



>blacks run around parroting what they been told aint nothing
>knew im surprised dr tommy curry still got a job

Yeah. I expect victims to act like victims (seeking acceptance, being stressed to the point of mental retardation, acting out of fear and/or survival, etc) but I can't say it isn't frustrating to watch Black people get played over and over in the same ways.
As for Dr. Curry, he got tenure pretty early in his career, and that's a blessing to us all. Even in light of that, it's STILL pretty shocking that a brother has been allowed to speak so truthfully at any university so I totally get your surprise.

yes theres a lot i disagree with thandeka about but its important to bring her up cos she does have good critiques of privelge discourse. same with adolph reed jr

youre right about brandt and white people being saved by black people its like an inverted liberation theory lol, but i do agree racism has trapped white people, the idea of race ended up damaging them massivley, (not that im particularly sympathetic)

with more space i want to get into the first paragraph but its quite dense


in fact i think its exactly an inverted liberation theology, and that makes sense Dr Thandeka is a unitarian church pastor after all.


what makes tackling race so tricky is that it 'switches lanes' so to speak. it is at once a class based oppression, but then identity is also folded into it.

i do agree with the idea that racism is a belief more so than an action, in the sense that one partakes in a racist white system that benefits whites to the degradation of blacks, but one can participate in that system and still not believe that blacks are inferior or subhuman to whites.

but by solely ascribing race to a belief and not an action or a system you give space for this system to continue and can you really say that allowing that space for the racist white system to continue is 'anti-racist' in any meaningful way? no you cant.

it is a pickle

I'll try to space out better... just didn't wanna take up
too much space and make the entire page harder to navigate.

I definitely agree that she had some good critiques,
despite my disagreements as well.

"Inverted Liberation Theory" is a good way to describe
Barndt... I'd even call it a Confinement Theory lol.
"How To Make A Good Negro Slave: New Refined Edition" even.

I actually took into full account that she was a
pastor and, admittedly, found it quite surprising that
she had useful contributions, initially... but then
I wasn't surprised that she fell back into the trap
of trying to save white people. I found myself thinking
"I should've known."

>i do agree with the idea that racism is a belief more so than
>an action, in the sense that one partakes in a racist white
>system that benefits whites to the degradation of blacks, but
>one can participate in that system and still not believe that
>blacks are inferior or subhuman to whites.
>
>but by solely ascribing race to a belief and not an action or
>a system you give space for this system to continue and can
>you really say that allowing that space for the racist white
>system to continue is 'anti-racist' in any meaningful way? no
>you cant.


That last line is exactly why I say we have to
totally forget about what white people believe
and focus on the actions, because that's all that
matters. When we formulate plans that are based
on changing actions, those drastically differ
from plans based on changing beliefs and are
far more effective. Take us for instance, we
can believe white people are inferior if we
want to, but that doesn't affect them, because
we can't systemically act on it. Their system
places consequences on our ACTIONS. If we don't
do the same, we're trying to win a fight without
fighting back, imo.

look for dr Thandeka's essay on privilege discourse being a re-inscription of original sin as secular

blacks run around parroting what they been told aint nothing knew im surprised dr tommy curry still got a job

Which of these are true/untrue?

1. All privilege rhetoric is nonsense.

2. Privilege rhetoric is flawed specifically as applied to male privilege for black men.

3. Male privilege is an idealogical hijacking of the concept of white privilege performed by white feminists.

4. Women do not have to concern themselves with different daily life decisions and concerns that are intrinsic and exclusive to having a female identity.

5. 19 of the richest 20 black people in the world are men. This does not signify an inherited advantage or privilege.

bosses.


>5. 19 of the richest 20 black people in the world are men.
>This does not signify an inherited advantage or privilege.

This thread is a very good example of how intersectional theory is logically incoherent.

You can't subscribe to theories of the patriarchy (or cisgender-normative theory for that matter) if you subscribe to the theory of white supremacy. Each of those three, if taken literally, leave no room for the others. Intersectional theory was an attempt to unify them and it DOESN'T work. They are all incompatible with each other.

This thread is literally FILLED with black men making the equivalent of a 'color-blind' argument in the context of sexism.

because you cannot have mlany sort of privilege when you do not have the asset of your own humanity.

The Black Male Privileges Checklist

Leadership & Politics

1. I don't have to choose my race over my sex in political matters.
2. When I read African American History textbooks, I will learn mainly about black men.
3. When I learn about the Civil Rights Movement & the Black Power Movements, most of the leaders that I will learn about will be black men.
4. I can rely on the fact that in the near 100 year history of national civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Urban League, virtually all of the executive directors have been male.
5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than black women.
6. Despite the substantial role that black women played in the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement, currently there is no black female that is considered a "race leader".
7. I can live my life without ever having read black feminist authors, or knowing about black women's history, or black women's issues.
8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the Black Panther Party where an "out" rapist Eldridge
Cleaver can assume leadership position.
9. I will make more money than black women at equal levels of education and occupation.
10. Most of the national "opinion framers" in Black America including talk show hosts and politicians are men.

Beauty
11. I have the ability to define black women's beauty by European standards in terms of skin tone, hair, and body size. In comparison, black women rarely define me by European standards of beauty in terms of skin tone, hair, or body size.
12. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of having my hair conforming to any standard image of beauty the way black women do.
13. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of being terrorized by the fear of gaining weight. In fact, in many instances bigger is better for my sex.
14. My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex.

Sex & Sexuality
15. I can purchase pornography that typically shows men defile women by the common practice of the "money shot.”
16. I can believe that causing pain during sex is connected with a woman's pleasure without ever asking her.
17. I have the privilege of not wanting to be a virgin, but preferring that my wife or significant other be a virgin.
18. When it comes to sex if I say "No", chances are that it will not be mistaken for “Yes".
19. If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.
20. I can use sexist language like bonin’, laying the pipe, hittin
-it, and banging that convey images of sexual acts based on dominance and performance.
21. I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.
22. In general, I prefer being involved with younger women socially and sexually
23. In general, the more sexual partners that I have the more statureI receive among my peers.
24. I have easy access to pornography that involves virtually any category of sex where men degrade women, often young women.
25. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where "purity balls" apply to girls but not to boys.
26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.

Popular Culture
27. I come from a tradition of humor that is based largely on insulting and disrespecting women; especially mothers.
28. I have the privilege of n
ot having black women, dress up and play funny characters often overweight that are supposed to look like me for the entire nation to laugh.
29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes in black film are men.
30. I can easily imagine that most of the artists in Hip Hop are members of my sex.
31. I can easily imagine that most of the women that appear in Hip Hop videos are there solely to please men
32. Most of lyrics I listen to in hiphop perpetuate the ideas of males dominating women, sexually and socially.
33. I have the privilege of consuming and popularizing the word pimp, which is based on the exploitation of women
with virtually no opposition from other men.
34. I can hear and use language bitches and hoes that demean women, with virtually no opposition from men.
35. I can wear a shirt that others and I commonly refer to as a "wife beater" and never have the language challenged.
36. Many of my favorite movies include images of strength that do not include members of the opposite sex and often are based on violence.
37. Many of my favorite genres of films, such as martial arts, are based on violence.
38. I have the privilege of popularizing or consuming the idea of a thug, which is based on the violence and victimization of others with virtually no opposition from other men.

Attitudes/Ideology
39. I have the privilege to define black women as having "an attitude" without referencing the range of attitudes that
black women have.
40. I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without defining my attitudes as a black man.
41. I can believe that the success of the black family is dependent on returning men to their historical place within the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to black children.
42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot raise a son to be a man.
43. I have the privilege of believing that a woman must submit to her man.
44. I have the privilege of believing that before slavery gender relationships between black men and women were perfect.
45. I have the privilege of believing that feminism is antiblack.
46. I have the privilege of believing that the failure of the black family is due to the black matriarchy.
47. I have the privilege of believing that household responsibilities are women's roles.
48. I have the privilege of believing that black women are different sexually than other women and judging them negatively based on this belief.

Sports
49. I will make significantly more money as a professional athlete than members of the opposite sex will.
50. In school, girls are cheerleaders for male athletes, but there is no such role for males to cheerlead for women athletes.
51. My financial success or popularity as a professional athlete will not be associated with my looks.
52. I can talk about sports or spend large portions of the day playing video games while women are most likely involved with household or childcare duties.
53. I can spend endless hours watching sports TV and have it considered natural.
54. I can touch, hug, or be emotionally expressive with other men while watching sports without observers perceiving this behavior as sexual.
55. I know that most sports analysts are male.
56. If I am a coach, I can motivate, punish, or embarrass a player by saying that the player plays like a girl.
57. Most sports talk show hosts that are members of my race are men.
58. I can rest assured that most of the coaches even in predominately
female sports within my race are male.
59. I am able to play sports outside without my shirt on and it not be considered a problem.
60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to cover up.

Diaspora/Global
61. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where the mutilation and disfigurement of a girl’s genitalia is used to deny her sexual sensations or to protect her virginity for males.
62. I have the privilege of not having rape be used as a primary tactic or tool to terrorize my sex during war and times of conflict.
63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.
64. I have the ability to travel around the world and have access to women in developing countries both sexually and
socially.
65. I have the privilege of being a part of the sex that starts wars and that wields control of Almost all the existing weapons of war and mass destruction.

College
66. In college, I will have the opportunity to date outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women will.
67. I have the privilege of having the phrase "sewing my wild oats" ap
ply to my sex as if it were natural.
68. I know that the further I go in education the more success I will have with women.
69. In college, black male professors will be involved in interracial marriages at much higher rates than members of the opposite sex will.
70. By the time I enter college, and even through college, I have the privilege of not having to worry whether I will be able to marry a black woman.
71. In college, I will experience a level of status and prestige that is not offered to black women even though black women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.
72. If I go to an HBCU, I will have incredible opportunities to exploit black women

Communication/LanguagE
73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.
74. I can choose to be emotionally withdrawn and not communicate in a relationships and it be considered unfortunate but normal.
75. I can dismissively refer to another persons grievances
76. I have the privilege of not knowing what words and concepts like patriarchy, phallocentric, complicity, colluding, and obfuscation mean.

Relationships
77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry.
78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.
79. If I am considering a divorce, I know that I have substantially more marriage, and cohabitation options than my spouse.
80. Chances are I will be defined as a "good man" by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don't beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a "good man". In comparison, women are rarely defined as "good women" based on what they do not do.
81. I have the privilege of not having to assume most of the household or child-care responsibilities.
82. I have the privilege of having not been raised with domestic responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and washing that takes up disproportionately more time as adults.

Church & Religious Traditions
83. In the Black Church, the majority of the pastoral leadership is male.
84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume
that the man is the head of household.

Physical Safety
85. I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex.
86. I have the privilege of knowing men who are physically or sexually abusive to women and yet I still call them friends.
87. I can video tape women in public- often without their consent -with male complicity.
88. I can be courteous to a person of the opposite sex that I do not know and say "Hello" or "Hi" and not fear that it will be taken as a come-on or fear being stalked because of it.
89. I can use physical violence or the threat of physical violence to get what I want when other tactics fail in a relationship.
90. If I get into a physical altercation with a person of the opposite sex, I will most likely be able to impose my will physically on that person
91. I can go to parades or other public events and not worry about being physically and sexually molested by persons of the opposite sex.
92. I can touch and physically grope women's bodies in public-often without their consent- with male complicity.
93. In general, I have the freedom to travel in the night without fear.
94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups.

>5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than
>black women.

But a black woman to her advantage can play the gender card.

>8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the
>Black Panther Party where an "out" rapist Eldridge
>Cleaver can assume leadership position.

>9. I will make more money than black women at equal levels of
>education and occupation.

Because they're likely to work more hours, aside from men and women in general seldom ever working the same occupations.






>29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in
>black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes
>in black film are men.

Because men are in high demand to play said roles.


>30. I can easily imagine that most of the artists in Hip Hop
>are members of my sex.

It's even easier to imagine that men actually care about Hip Hop enough to put the time and effort into making a career out of it.





>41. I can believe that the success of the black family is
>dependent on returning men to their historical place within
>the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen
>black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to
>black children.

The same policies that did nothing but enable the crime and delinquency that Black communities have been suffering from since 1964?


>42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot
>raise a son to be a man.

Judging by the current state of the Black community, he probably has good reason to believe it.



>46. I have the privilege of believing that the failure of the
>black family is due to the black matriarchy.

All enabled by LBJ's War On Poverty and Great Society.


>
>Sports
>49. I will make significantly more money as a professional
>athlete than members of the opposite sex will.

Well, besides tennis, does any other women's sport generate the same fanfare, interest and revenue?




>60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside
>without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to
>cover up.

It must be the tits!


>63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female
>leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage
>to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.

Like Indira Gandhi?




>65. I have the privilege of being a part of the sex that
>starts wars and that wields control of Almost all the existing
>weapons of war and mass destruction

And also be a part of that same sex that puts an end to said wars and bring the perpetrators to justice.



>71. In college, I will experience a level of status and
>prestige that is not offered to black women even though black
>women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.

LMAO Maybe if you're in college on an athletic scholarship and turn out be a god on the court/gridiron.


>Relationships
>77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a
>much higher rate than black women marry.
>78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure
>of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is
>routinely associated with the failure of the black family.

>

>


>90. If I get into a physical altercation with a person of the
>opposite sex, I will most likely be able to impose my will
>physically on that person

Men are physically bigger and stronger than women.


>94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being
>sexually harassed by individuals or groups.

But they have to fear getting robbed, assaulted or even killed at random.

It was asked so I googled it. 'Male black privilege'. It was amongst the first results.

I'll look at the ones you addressed. Many of them are ridiculous. Some of them are true and need to be acknowledged imo.

I'm glad he did as Mr. Woods should be completely ashamed of himself for concocting such a ridiculous list.
Number 37 on the list is the one I was referencing in reply 55 when I said:
"When you're looking at a people being systemically murdered, what good is it doing to tell them to check their privilege because films are based on violence?" (of course this is is direct reference to Black men)
This is the absurdity of 99% of the list. I could literally go through and point out how ridiculous all of those things are. Notice how many times he says "I have the privilege of believing." Everyone in America has the privilege of believing whatever they wanna believe, and he seems to speaking for himself with most of the point. Then alotta the stuff he says after that "privilege of believing" phrase is stuff that only ostracized individuals believe (46. I have the privilege of believing that the failure of the black family is due to the black matriarchy.)... and considering what's in the those parentheses, he should have a VERY long "Black female privilege checklist" since matriarchy exists in our community, right? But no, it's only the gender most targeted for extermination BASED ON GENDER and race who's urged to check their race and gender-based privilege? His thoughts on pornography just reveal how screwed up HE is personally (26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain). He sounds sick. Then so many of them are just plain false (10. Most of the national "opinion framers" in Black America including talk show hosts and politicians are men, 73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.) Speaking of which, he claims it's privilege that the white patriarchal establishment only highlights Black men in the civil rights/black power movements. This isn't a privilege to anyone considering all the great Black women voices throughout American history. But even more importantly, the white establishment is very big on MLK due to most of his civil rights career being based on non-violence. Women like Ida B. Wells and Rosa Parks weren't with that mess (read up if you didn't know), so again, we're blaming each other for what the white establishment promotes. I find it particularly egregious when people use the example of Black men standing up against the establishment for the community DESPITE BEING THE MOST TARGETED FOR DEATH BY THE ESTABLISHMENT as some example of a privilege. Another important thing about the list (as was the case with the article Buddy posted in reply 38), much of the list says "you benefit from THIS way in which racism is practiced against you." I went into that pretty thoroughly in my response to that article in reply 68.

Anyway tho, I really do LOVE the fact that Denny posted the list in here, because he's been known to spout alt-right-ish views and keenly refined racism on the boards. I pointed it out here when I decided he truly wasn't worth discussing anything with: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13162257&mesg_id=13162257&listing_type=search#13166418
Go ahead... read the whole post if you haven't already.
I think it's very important to ask ourselves why such a person would be so hellbent on this Black male privilege idea and why any Black person would be siding with this dude on any racial matter affecting Black people. This is a victims vs victims initiative and is highly important for alleged anti-racists who actually seek to destroy any kind of Black unity against white patriarchy. Given feminism's anti-Black male origins, it's just not surprising that those claiming it would be on the same side as such a white person as denny. It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's clear as day for anyone who's read and followed the history.

I just ignore him for the most part.

'systematic murder'.

You're likelier to win a lottery.

You don't even wanna be honest about the numbers.
And that's on top of 800,000+ incarcerated.
You know this tho and are just practicing more
racism as usual, so I'm not correcting the stats
for you but for anyone who might believe your lies.
This is why you're too dishonest to engage seriously.

We agree on the numbers. Why would you use the term 'systematic murder' to describe a 330 to 20 million ratio? Do you know anything about anywhere else at any other time?

It's interesting that you paint me as 'alt-right' in thinking that this is my list. It's not my list. I just copied and pasted. You said black feminists 'looked for black male privilege and couldn't find anything'. So you're actually accusing the author of this list as being alt-right. An assertion I'm sure would be absurd to her.

>We agree on the numbers. Why would you use the term
>'systematic murder' to describe a 330 to 20 million ratio?

Since I've repeatedly said I don't have serious
discussions with you, I'm not going into any
detail and am only going to conclude that you
are pretending not to know what the terms
"systemic" or "systematic" mean.

As for the "alt-right-ish" comment, that wasn't
about the list and you know it. It was about
stuff you've said before, hence me saying
"he's been known to spout alt-right-ish views and
keenly refined racism on the boards."

You're being obtuse all around, sir.

is that really your arguement?

when you enter privilege discourse

its a mess.

"if you're male then you're privileged"
without taking into account how a "privileged"
identity (such as maleness) may interact with
a "subordinate" identity (such as race), in
order to make one even less privileged
than holding two "subordinate" identities.
Like Mutua said, intuitively this doesn't
seem correct, but the studies bore it out
in the area of racial profiling and others.

To loosely quote her essay again:
"structures of race and gender {do} not simply
intersect but mutually and synergistically shape,
reinforce, and constitute one another,"
but people are so stuck on the rigid ideas of
the intersections that they aren't facing the
reality of the intersections.

And like you suggested, they end up downplaying
the oppression of groups based on the
assumption that they're supposed to be privileged
even when data doesn't bear it out.
It just becomes denial and disregard.

Thank god people are seeing through this mess tho.

glad to here mutua is releasing a book to general pop


put a lot of crap to bed


i and some black men have been digging historically into the black male experience its totally not what the standard narrative everyone has is. black women where always more educated than black men in the U.S. etc people just stuck with this bs narrative they been programmed to have.

Real talk

Black activists believe in white privilege but not male and/or cisgender privilege.

Feminist activists believe in male privilege but not white and or cisgender privilege

Queer activists believe in cisgender privilege but not white/male privilege.

These worldviews are logically incompatible and this thread serves as pretty good evidence of that.

Or am I wrong?

You're trying to initiate a conversation that
was already initiated more straightforwardly
in reply 17.

Got it!

Either you didn't read them or your
comprehension is sorely lacking, and
I'm not rehashing them after having already
had those conversations in this very thread.

But as I stated with denny, you're a white
dude who consistently practices refined racism
on the boards, so it's not surprising at all
that you'd deny the research disproving the
notion of Black male privilege as it serves
your practice of denying and disregarding
the mistreatment of Black people.

practice of denying and disregarding
>the mistreatment of Black people.
>
>

They do it over and over

to tell Black Men about whether Black Men have a privilege?

This thread reminds me of trying to convince poor white trash West Virginia Red Necks that they are enjoying the benefits of White Male Privilege.

I also can't tell if you all are joking as to whether "Male Privelege" exists.




>list examples if it does?
>
>If it doesn't how can you tell?
>
>I'm on the side of Dr Tommy Curry.
>
>https://imixwhatilike.org/2017/07/06/dr-tommy-curry-man-not/


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I also can't tell if you all are joking as to whether "Male
>Privelege" exists.

That list in post #104 is absolutely ridiculous, but stuff like that is apparently the best examples of this privilege. (Watching porn w/ cumshots is male privilege???)

Besides being bigger physically (which isn't a privilege unless y'all wanna blame God), what other privileges do men have over women?

Do you walk your homeboy?

That you have to do your home girl and not your homeboy is a privelege in itself.

Also can't downplay the being bigger physically. That's huge!!! As a not that big a guy I know. I get tested in ways that my bigger brother and my bigger friends never get tested. They use to blame me for starting fights they got sucked into but the truth (my truth) is that dudes would try to start with me because I was smaller.

And think about just male privelege in general, every time a woman goes on a date with a typical dude stranger (who is let's say 30% at least bigger than her) she takes her life into her own hands.

CK Louis explains it well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRzs7v0do_Q





>>I also can't tell if you all are joking as to whether "Male
>>Privelege" exists.
>
>That list in post #104 is absolutely ridiculous, but stuff
>like that is apparently the best examples of this privilege.
>(Watching porn w/ cumshots is male privilege???)
>
>Besides being bigger physically (which isn't a privilege
>unless y'all wanna blame God), what other privileges do men
>have over women?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

for literally every from of institutional oppression there is, from roughly the age of 2 or 3.

That's why I keep saying you can't put hard and fast rules on it. I think it complicated and you have to just recognize the situations when it helps and the many situations when it doesn't.

I just don't think you can say a black man's physicality is ALWAYS a curse and not a gift sometimes.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Do you walk your homeboy?
>
>That you have to do your home girl and not your homeboy is a
>privelege in itself.
>

and feminazis making this a big deal is also a problem.

women from physical harm that they have a privilege as males?

Especially when you add in the legacy of sexual abuse against black women in the USA and 13 colonies that is a very nuanced situation.

Also no one has done a study on rape concerning colonial societies and societies where populations are homogeneous not based on rape exploitation and racism on top of anti female mentality.

Do women have a privilege since they are genetically suited to carry children?

the opposite sex is going to rape or otherwise do them harm.

I've never been on a date and had to wonder, is this chick going to take advantage of me physcially?

And yes women have the privilege of being able to give birth. And also being the only ones who can give birth is also a burden. In other words, tt's complicated.

Adnd yet, I feel like yall are making it more complicated than it has to be and getting overly academic and philosophical when common sense should tell you that there are certain advantages to being a male (black or otherwise).




>women from physical harm that they have a privilege as
>males?
>
>Especially when you add in the legacy of sexual abuse against
>black women in the USA and 13 colonies that is a very nuanced
>situation.
>
>Also no one has done a study on rape concerning colonial
>societies and societies where populations are homogeneous not
>based on rape exploitation and racism on top of anti female
>mentality.
>
>Do women have a privilege since they are genetically suited to
>carry children?
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

on a woman against her will is a privilege?

It's an advantage that confers with it other privileges. privileges such as not worrying about your date overpowering you and taking advantage of you.

>on a woman against her will is a privilege?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

live in where males have the "privilege" of imposing their physical strength on females and raping them?

And does this privilege vanish when males sexually assault other males?

hahahahahahaha

Musa is a black American with his head stuck up his own ass.

You should try to read about it!

worrying about getting raped into a privilege of the ability to rape women. Stop doing that please.

Also would you deny that many of the black governments, countries, cultures subjugated the women within those countries and cultures?

If so how? and why?



>live in where males have the "privilege" of imposing their
>physical strength on females and raping them?
>
>And does this privilege vanish when males sexually assault
>other males?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

exist.

To make it more specific Black males are referring to those within the 50 states of the USA.

Now privileges are given by governments, state, city, federal.

Please explain how the threat of being a rapist is a privilege?

How about the countless male children molested and raped?


Also when Black youth were gang warring and raping each other does that mean they were flexing black male privilege over other black males?

How about in jail does this privilege of males not fearing being raped exist?

...that is, every 'privilege' that the black man has is based on the *premise* of a black man physically imposing his will on someone.

Yet, there is a system in place specifically designed to come down on us HARD for using our physical power to impose our will.

Where's the privilege in that?

that's a privilege...and a major one for women

yes there are several disadvantages to having that privilege largely due to white patriarchy but black women largely have no say or part in that aspect

https://media.giphy.com/media/l4HnKwiJJaJQB04Zq/giphy.gif
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cd/6f/58/cd6f583fa03b3dd99a6ec244fa503ff2--meme-posts.jpg

Black men face tremendous discrimination and persecution in society, absolutely. But, I can't get behind the idea that this absolves any and all privilege.

I mean, by that logic, are we also going to posit that White Female Privilege doesn't exist because of the inequities white women experience under white patriarchy??

And what if we consider Black folks whose father bounced when they were young who couldn't even tell you whether the man's dead or not or give the vaguest description of what he's up to. If a man abandons the people who love him before death/incarceration/substance abuse/illness/whatever, did he still exercise privilege? Hell yeah he did.

But I also don't see the end goal of pontificating all the different ways Black Men are restricted from exercising privilege. At the end of the day it is often others - mostly Black Women and Children, mind you - that are left to pick up the pieces regardless. I don't think meaningful discourse involves disparaging the experiences of any one group.

What about custody rights and child support court?

What about the women who abuse children to spite the father and keep them away because of their petty short sited and spiteful ways?

loved ones, voluntarily? I believe he is exercising privilege by leaving, yes.

>What about custody rights and child support court?
>
>What about the women who abuse children to spite the father
>and keep them away because of their petty short sited and
>spiteful ways?
>

What about them? I don't see this sort of thing like a round of Jeopardy, I guess. To me, the rights and wrongs don't cancel each other out nor are they mutually exclusive. None of the caveats you raise change the fact that a parent left, voluntarily, or the inherent privilege in that decision.

But again.. I fail to see the ultimate benefit of quibbling over whether phenomena such as this is the result of privilege (e.g. father left voluntarily) or persecution (e.g. father was shot dead). Instead, I think all facets of the issue deserve rigorous and compassionate attention.

privilege of leaving a woman to be a single mother?

Are you saying that the repercussions of a man leaving a woman to be a single mother are in his best interest when economically(child support), physically(prison) and socially(stigmatized stereotyped and if he has any type of deep feelings emotionally fractured) are a privilege?

If we look at the history of Black families post overt physical slavery we know this fatherless issue did not spring up until the late 60s and 70s.

Having a man in the house = reduced welfare benefits.


>If we look at the history of Black families post overt
>physical slavery we know this fatherless issue did not spring
>up until the late 60s and 70s.
>
>

Closing of decent paying jobs all caused the fatherless homes more prevalent now along with the illusion of inclusion black people have where they think working against each other is better than working together.

when he decides to call it quits with the mother of his kids???


I'm honestly more curious about the decision process, for real.


Like do a lot of men just think raising kids is no big deal at first??


Is it selfishness??


Feelings of inadequacy??

yeah because black women certainly aren't selfish. you sound like a feminist drone. prolly a swirler too

I just think that (voluntary) paternal abandonment is an example of men exercising male privilege.

It's also more prevalent among Black people than any other race/ethnicity group in the US.

And I don't think the fact that Black Men are victimized in society at large diminishes the male privilege exercised by those that choose to abandon their children.

"to pick up the pieces?"

Not coming at you, but that's one of MANY trite responses that are given when we talk about the reality of the victimization of black men. OF COURSE our victimization affects others, lol! Cuz no one exists in a vacuum. That doesn't invalidate the victimization of the black male body, tho.

Re: an end goal...if you can't call a thing a thing, you can't address it/fight it...which is one of several possible end goals.

But then, at the same time, I also resent your "quotation marks" around:

>"to pick up the pieces?"
>

I'm not coming at you, either. But the burden and suffering in "picking up the pieces" is some real shit too. And it deserves our respect. I don't want to know the grief a parent feels burying their child. And that's just considering the emotional "pieces".. What about all the money they have to come up with for the financial "pieces"?... Bail/bond, court cases, debts, sending money, collect calls, talk less of the costs to actually bury (how many young black men have life insurance?), etc.

I'm glad we agree re: Black men don't exist in a vacuum. And that acknowledging the broader impact of Black Male Victimization doesn't invalidate these experiences.
But perhaps the fact that these burdens so often fall on the Black Women and Children in a victimized Black man's life - as opposed to the other way around - is one reason why it's so easy for some of yall to dismiss what they go through??

I mean, bringing it back to the original debate: This perspective being championed throughout this post that the sheer existence of Black Male Victimization invalidates the concept of Black Male Privilege. We then take this notion one step further if we dismiss the impact that victimization of a Black male has on those that love him.

My question is, why would it be impossible for these various realities to coexist in one man's life? What is with this desire to distance Black Male Suffering - both physically AND figuratively - from the extended fabric of people who love you guys? What advantages have yall seen from doing this?

It just seems like this 'distancing' actually makes Black men more of a target? The more your identity is restricted to being simply a 'black body'.. the less you're viewed as someone's son, brother, father, romantic partner, boss, mentor, etc. So why even reinforce that reductive-ass crap?

"But perhaps the fact that these burdens so often fall on the Black Women and Children in a victimized Black man's life - as opposed to the other way around - is one reason why it's so easy for some of yall to dismiss what they go through??"


The idea that it is only, or even *primarily*, black women that have to "pick up the pieces" is empirically false, and more than a little theoretically absurd. The idea that black men are somehow not involved in the process of carrying on is...interesting.

Furthermore, how is it that black men/boys aren't burdened by the victimization of black women? How is that black males are somehow...exempt from the human experience of having to cope with the exploitation/abuse/oppression of women/girls? That's one hell of a leap that I don't believe any kind of data or study will support.

"This perspective being championed throughout this post that the sheer existence of Black Male Victimization invalidates the concept of Black Male Privilege. We then take this notion one step further if we dismiss the impact that victimization of a Black male has on those that love him."

NO. There is no dismissal of the impact of his suffering on his loved ones. *I* question the inability/difficulty in *foregrounding* the suffering of the black male body on its own terms. There seems to be some struggle in these discussions about black male vulnerability to sink our feet into the idea that BLACK MEN ARE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK MEN. Of course the women in his life will suffer. Of course his children will. BUT can we actively engage in his suffering and it's effects on HIM, and those like him?

"The more your identity is restricted to being simply a 'black body'.. the less you're viewed as someone's son, brother, father, romantic partner, boss, mentor, etc. So why even reinforce that reductive-ass crap?"

I think you're confusing the critique with what is being critiqued. Furthermore, the life of an unemployed, childless single orphan black man MATTERS. The difficulty in seeing a black male body as a human being is real, and I think you understand why as a human being in a black male body I/we should take issue with that. In other words, OF COURSE my figurative deaths affect the community. But OF COURSE I am aware of and hurt by my figurative deaths on their own terms.

and even that is only because white men need white women to make white babies.

Black people are not humans under white supremacy. And if you believe black men are privileged because we can walk away from the family unit, you really need to evaluate your knowledge of how the system works as well as where you are getting a concept like that from.

I don't get that at all.

But you know what? You're not running me off.


Because:


a) I wanna speak up for the children


and


b) Fuck your privilege


lol

goal posts, androcentrism and disrespect has been SUCH a fantastic time.

I've been asking this question for months and after the half hearted dialogue with rebuttal that is actual and factual folks pushing Black males have privilege story usually divulge into name calling in deflecting.

I got self proclaimed feminist running scared or they just call on sympathizers who parrot the same misandry because of their bitter personal experiences.

I mean I really trying to find examples of Black males having their gender privilege and eating it too when all the data, statistics and news stories lean towards it not existing.

I know things just don't work out between people sometimes.

This is a sensitive topic. But an important one, I think.


Maybe if maternal abandonment was as prevalent as paternal abandonment, the conversation would be different.


But it's not. So here we are.

Lol.

The heart of this debate is whether a subjugated group can also be privileged.

I brought up the case of white women because there seems to be consensus that they meet those criteria.

And you bring up the aggregate oppression of Black people under a white supremacist regime... but I swear you guys forget that Black Men are not the only ones considered sub-human under such circumstances, lol

I'm aware of how the child custody/ child support system works and how men face certain disadvantages. I just don't believe it absolves a man of the privilege he exercised from jump if he decided - at some earlier stage - that housing, feeding and raising his own children should be the mother's/grandmother's/aunt's/whoever's responsibility while he gets to go on just living life .

Not to mention, there's a lot of men that could have avoided dealing with said system by.. oh, I don't know... choosing to stick around and raise/co-parent their children?

THERE IS NONE. You really need to think about this more before you come with your crap. It isn't a strawman argument. The fact that you think it is a privilege to destroy your own family dynamic is really sick, for lack of a better word. You cannot conflate individualistic behaviors placed on communal people under a weaponized context with said communal people partaking in a privilege when they do it.

Privilege moreso than anything is about empowerment. A black man cannot empower himself by leaving his family, because he cannot empower the next generation and so on. Making privilege about "I can do this and you can't" and leaving it there is dangerous thinking.

And I didn't make the argument of black men being subhuman...I said BLACK PEOPLE are not human so you can take that somewhere else.

to abandon his children has exercised male privilege. I also said that perhaps the conversation would be different if maternal abandonment was as prevalent as paternal abandonment (it's not).


>Privilege moreso than anything is about empowerment. A black
>man cannot empower himself by leaving his family, because he
>cannot empower the next generation and so on. Making privilege
>about "I can do this and you can't" and leaving it there is
>dangerous thinking.

You can call my interpretation whatever kind of thinking you want. At least it aligns with the actual definition of privilege:


privilege

noun priv·i·lege \ˈpriv-lij, ˈpri-və-\

a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or AVAILABLE ONLY TO A PARTICULAR PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE.

for black people, because it plays into white supremacist constructs and is a weaponized process. But I'll leave you to it, though.

Also defining social constructs with dictionary summaries (the purpose of a dictionary is not to define words, it is a source for diction standards) often fails-see "racism."

Preach it to Black men who are not in their children's lives.


Just because I see privilege in their decision doesn't mean I view paternal abandonment as advantageous to Black communities. It is not even advantageous to their families.

That's kind of the point in bringing it up. Lol

> Definition of privilege
> : a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor


1. There is clearly no "benefit, advantage or favor" here
2. There's nothing stopping women from doing the same


But I expect that you'll keep on hammering this point that has nothing to do with the actual discussion of 'privilege,' because there isn't any privilege to be found in the actions (leaving) that you keep bringing up.

It's called intellectual dishonesty, and I'm surprised some of the other posters here continue to engage you.

Well, yes. Because somebody has to house, feed and raise those children.

A responsibility that a large number of men do not 'also' see as a barrier to leaving.

One parent sees parenting as a choice, the other is denied even having a choice.

Men make this choice far more often than women.


But, please, don't let me stop you from 'not engaging' me. I think that would be best, actually.

As if there is some force field or law preventing women from walking out the door. But I'm sure you already know there isn't.

stop engaging me..?

I think we're done here.

>Your reading comprehension is poor. And weren't you supposed to
>stop engaging me..?
>
>I think we're done here.
>

his family than a woman?

And I say easier from a social stigma to logistical point of view?

Ever see a birth certificate without a father's name on it? Sure.

Ever see a birth certificate without a mother's name on it? I wager never.


And if you think that is not the case why do you think there are so many mother single parent households than father single parent households?




>
>Black men face tremendous discrimination and persecution in
>society, absolutely. But, I can't get behind the idea that
>this absolves any and all privilege.
>
>I mean, by that logic, are we also going to posit that White
>Female Privilege doesn't exist because of the inequities white
>women experience under white patriarchy??
>
>And what if we consider Black folks whose father bounced when
>they were young who couldn't even tell you whether the man's
>dead or not or give the vaguest description of what he's up
>to. If a man abandons the people who love him before
>death/incarceration/substance abuse/illness/whatever, did he
>still exercise privilege? Hell yeah he did.
>
>But I also don't see the end goal of pontificating all the
>different ways Black Men are restricted from exercising
>privilege. At the end of the day it is often others - mostly
>Black Women and Children, mind you - that are left to pick up
>the pieces regardless. I don't think meaningful discourse
>involves disparaging the experiences of any one group.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://shugaverypee.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rayj_9_gif3.gif
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

The wack shade throwing emo twitter stuff don't work. This post in its entirety exposes the lunacy of people promoting Black male privilege.

So far we got

Physical dominance/threat of rapw



Leaving families.

Those are privileges.

A waste if time.
Reread what Ike Moses said.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

Good day

I also side with him regarding Black male privilege. It is very refreshing to know that there is a scholar out there who is sticking up for Black men and boys.

.

this is a great convo

and i'm finding myself agreeing with people i typically might not or at least taking points from a lot of different folks and piecing them together to make a fuller/clearer picture


i feel like there may be several different playing fields when talking about privilege...there's the integrated public playing fields (where white patriarchy is unavoidable) but there is also the semi-segregated playing fields we typically create where we the shadow of that oppression is looming but where we do enjoy more privilege typically

There's the integrated field where black men enjoy few to none of the typical privileges white men enjoy in relation to white women. I say few because I do think those privileges exist. I think Ike got part of his counter-point right in that while many of those common male privileges get nullified by specific and sometimes systematic gendered oppression of males that females either don't experience or experience far less. That doesn't take away from the fact that I will be taken more seriously by default. It's not an obvious thing either and it's not quarantined to male-dominated spaces. Males voices, opinions and deeds are given priority. There was a shared email example that was talked about a lot where a husband and wife were trying to negotiate something via email and how there was no room for negotiation until the Signature in the email changed from the wife to the husband. That's a privilege that we as black men do receive in most fields.

I think in relationships, we also enjoy certain privileges. That patriarchy has bled over and it's not even subtle most of the times. I disagree often about what those privileges are...i think the wage gap between men and women is significantly smaller compared to white men/women but there's a distinct education gap that exists too. Those unique disadvantages make those privileges seem like a net loss of privilege but when you consider how they play out within the different contexts...you can't discount them but so much.

I also want to push back on intersectionality being solely about gendered subjugation of women...that thought process exists but it's mostly due to bias or just simply poor discourse becoming too popular too quickly. I think there is just such poor discourse bc every oversight or miscommunication point becomes an attack or slight. Then people are mystified why people become defensive when their privilege is challenged.

humans just suck and have a tough time getting over themselves

and perspective is something I didn't take into consideration concerning Black males being taken more serious in settings concerning the inside and outside of our community. I think I hinted on the church being a prime example of that but that was the only place that came to mind where it is taken without dangerous repercussions in my observation.

privilege?

I just heard someone say a couple of hours ago the very nature of privilege does not permit the privileged to see their privilege.

It is easy to understand that idea when talking about white privilege to white folks but folks seem to struggle with applying that concept to themselves.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You attack a problem in order of which mathematical problem is first in PEMDAS

Now in this society the USA we know that Blackness(African/aboriginal) is a primary target but for all the funny reasons people named(greater physical dominance) it makes black males a greater target for elimination.

Now if that is privilege then I'm looking forward to that physical/masculine dominance paying off somewhere other than a sports field.

Post #188 says it. After all this, we have:

1. Physical size (not a privilege)
2. Leaving one's kids (not a privilege)



I'll even give an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States

The laws passed were in direct response to actual privilege.

priv·i·lege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.



I'll ask again: What privilege(s) should I acknowledge?

cos they dont exist the academic research by an actual sociologist shows they dont

but people are wedded to the emotions of the idea not the logic of it and their identities are in part folded into having ' correct politics'

when you ask for examples they cant give you none or the things they suggest are actually net negative for black men


i mean perceived physicality???


that in and off itself is derived from a racist stereotypes of black men!

Humor me. It's a dialouge.


>Post #188 says it. After all this, we have:
>
>1. Physical size (not a privilege)
>2. Leaving one's kids (not a privilege)
>
>
>
>I'll even give an example:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States
>
>The laws passed were in direct response to actual privilege.
>
>priv·i·lege
>noun
>1.
>a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available
>only to a particular person or group of people.
>
>
>
>I'll ask again: What privilege(s) should I acknowledge?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

As a matter of fact, you completely
ignored all of #161, including my
re-asking of the questions.

So humor me. It's a dialogue.

Your insincere, condescending and not respectful in tone which makes it really not worth extended back and forths with you. But I'll go a couple of more rounds.


>As a matter of fact, you completely
>ignored all of #161, including my
>re-asking of the questions.
>
>So humor me. It's a dialogue.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Your insincere, condescending and not respectful in tone
>which makes it really not worth extended back and forths with
>you. But I'll go a couple of more rounds.

At this point, I'm not even sure how you feel this way. Knowing your sensitive nature, I went out of my way to tip toe around your feelings, and you still got touchy.
If anything, you were being rather offensive when you flatly accused me of oversimplifying and "looking for hard and fast rules." I guess it got too real for you when I responded in kind?
As for the insincere accusation, I was extremely sincere about my questions and comments. I tend not to type that much if I'm not, and if I'm being rhetorical or condescending, I usually state as much.

>Ever walk a girl to her car on a late night?

Yes.

>Do you walk your homeboy?

Yes. I walk my peoples out.


That you have to do your home girl and not your homeboy is a privelege in itself.

>Also can't downplay the being bigger physically. That's huge!!!

It is huge, but it's an ADVANTAGE and not a privilege. It's also neutralized by the reality that I can be shot, stabbed, beaten by a mob, arrested by the police, etc. What 'privilege' is there in being bigger if I can't use it for any advantage?

A real example of actual privilege would be star athletes that assault or rape (or both), and get off because of their star status. The privilege in that isn't their size, but rather the system that supports negative behaviours by star athletes. Of course, only a small percentage of black men are star athletes so this isn't a 'black male privilege' but rather a 'star athlete privilege'

It's not really about privilege rhetoric. It's about personal psychology. There is a pathology in not being capable of seeing yourself as having a benefit in ANY manner. It's an EXTREMELY dangerous personality trait. Often the result of trauma.

considering the fact that, privilege discourse was
initiated to address the social system of white supremacy?
Now a white woman diffuses it with alllivesmatter logic,
proclaiming "well we all have privilege, so look at you!"

Now here YOU are, comparing the most targeted group
under white patriarchy to white people, and you don't
see the irony in that. You have successfully been had, sir.




^Read that part again, because I don't think you've
let that sink in just yet. My questions in reply 68
still stand, btw.



I already explained to you why picking through
"Black male privilege" is a silly exercise in reply 161
(and you didn't respond), so I'm not typing it again.
I'll just say that if we're searching for Black male privilege,
we'd have a longer list of Black female privileges,
although, again, I don't like using the term "privilege"
as I find it disrespectful to Dubois since this idea
of us all finding our own advantages was NOT what he
meant when he used the term.

This "privileged can't see their privilege" actually
doesn't apply here, and it's SO not surprising that
you and denny are, once again, on the same side of the argument.
Like I said in reply 106:
It's important to ask ourselves why any Black person would
be siding with denny on any racial matter affecting Black people.
This "all privilege matters" revamp is a victims vs victims
initiative and is highly important for alleged anti-racists who
actually seek to destroy any kind of Black unity against white
patriarchy.

ask yourself who else turned White folks out and upside down like OJ did?

but we had free black societies known as Maroons who were kicking ass and taking names had racist shook but that ain't privilege or is it?

like a fiddle. Pac had to die to get Privledge his life was anything but IMO