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"