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"