<p>However, a young white man is probably further from the negative stereotype threshold than a young black man, on average. Consider the following situations and the probable likelihood that others will view them suspiciously (clerks watching them while shopping, police suspicion, etc.):</p>
<p>
Young white man Young black man Dress / appearance</p>
<p>No No Conservative business dress
No No Dress / appearance matches
activity being done (work,
sports, etc.)
No Rarely Middle/upper class casual
Rarely Sometimes Lower class casual
Yes Yes "Stereotype"
</p>
<p>“Stereotype” may mean saggy pants, gang-associated symbols/colors/etc., Confederate flags (for white men), and whatever else is associated with “suspicious” stereotypes.</p>
<p>Of course, this type of thing may be less noticeable for old and/or female people (probably the main demographic in the parents’ forum), since being old and/or female puts one further away from the negative stereotype threshold.</p>
<p>Yes, I acknowledged that it was probably more likely, on average, ucb, even though I am an “old female,” I am able to understand that it happens. (eye-roll symbol here)</p>
<p>The example given in this thread as a typical disadvantage that happens to blacks (followed in stores) that does not happen to white males is merely a generalization, because it does happen to white males sometimes, and it doesn’t happen to black males all the time. I guess I’m trying to point out that labels of “privilege” based on race are just generalizations, they are not true much of the time. Which is another reason the labels should not be used against individuals (“check your privilege”), as opposed to being used in the context of a general discussion about privilege.</p>
<p>True, but the anti-privilege or tax experienced by young black men is that if they want to avoid negative stereotyping, they are more restricted in their dress and appearance than young white men are.</p>
<p>As a society, we choose to funnel our enforcement resources disproportionately toward minor crimes mainly perpetrated by the poor and minorities. Having a large, angry-looking white man following you around a store is a way to discourage the person from shopping there without having the need for a Jim Crow law. We tend to forgive and explain away the largest crimes. Michael Milken (“philanthropist”) receives standing ovations everywhere he goes.</p>
<p>I also reflected on PG’s example, which at the time sounded poignant (the mother of black children worrying about her sons playing with toy guns in public, while the white mother didn’t mention it as worrisome), and remembered that I did not allow my white, baby-faced son who was obsessed with toy gun games, to play them anywhere other than the backyard or in the house, because I worried he might be mistaken for carrying a real gun and be shot. So this particular “disadvantage” described in being black is not unique to being black; some of us whites have the same concerns, and if you were to tell me to “check my privilege,” about my son carrying a toy gun, you would be wrong that I didn’t suffer the same concerns.</p>
<p>Again, my point being that these things mentioned as “privileges” are generalizations only, they are not always true, so they should not be assumed of any particular individual based upon his/her race. </p>
<p>If I recall correctly, Milken did time, and disgorged the largest monetary penalty in history, which would have been distributed to compensate those harmed. Are you saying that the monetary damage inflicted by Milken is worse than the experience of those whose loved ones were murdered by violent criminals? </p>
<p>But they ARE true much of the time. Stop and frisk? Disproportionately focused on minorities. Marijuana arrests? Same thing. Traffic stops of minority drivers in beat-up cars in fancy neighborhoods? Yup. There is so much evidence on all of this, Bay…just because it doesn’t happen to EVERY SINGLE PERSON doesn’t mean the generalizations are not founded in reality.</p>
<p>Well Sally, the negative stereotypes are founded in reality, too. That is the unfortunate truth.</p>
<p>We all are stereotyped to some degree because of how we look. It can be a positive or a negative but I don’t really get how it’s some kind of life altering privilege. Many very successful black men tell these stories so it didn’t seem to hurt them much. And, you never know what prompted the suspected following do you? I’m not saying racial profiling is okay but it is a fine line between that and criminal profiling. Look at the TSA searching Swedish grandmas…it all gets silly.</p>
<p>Again, I did not deny that these things happen (can you read without your bias glasses on?), I specifically stated and agreed that they do, and that they are <em>generalizations.</em> I said they sometimes happen to white people too. So if you accuse an individual white person of having that privilege, you could be wrong, which is why you shouldn’t do it. What is your point?</p>
<p>Well, beat up cars hanging around in in fancy neighborhoods probably cause neighbors to call in a report. So, yeah. They might get stopped. Black, white, or other. Not everything is racial. </p>
<p>Bay, of course no example given is ALWAYS true. Of course a black male is not followed in a store ALL the time. However, what does happen is the subtle difference in how you are approached. It doesn’t even matter how you are dressed. My very good black male friend who is 57, dresses impeccably (gorgeous Armani suits) and speaks eruditely can give you example after example after example after example (I think you get the point) of cases where he has been treated differently when he walks in a store in comparison to his white counterparts. Does it happen to him EVERY time that he walks in a store? Of course not. Throwing out comparisons of the tatted up white boy and then saying, “well he would get followed if he walked into the store” is a completely specious argument. Because at the end of the day, the tatted up individual can walk into the store with his tats covered up, wearing a suit, he probably isn’t going to be followed. The black man can NEVER cover up the fact that he is black. Oh yeah, some could and did back in history, it was called passe blanc.</p>
<p>@actingmt Of course not everything is racial. Who said it was? I will tell you this. My son and I drove the same car that had a front headlight that kept going out. It would randomly go out and we would have take it in to have it fixed. Guess how many times I was pulled over when the headlight was out? Guess how many times my bi-racial son was pulled over? If you guessed zero for me and three for him, you would be correct. Could it just be happenstance? Absolutely. Could it be because he was a younger driver? Also possible. I would like to think that it was because he is a young driver or it was happenstance, it fits better with my need to view the world through rose-colored glasses. However, I could see where some people might not see it the same way. I have heard the expression driving while black, but I don’t think I have heard the expression driving a 1980 pinto while white.</p>
<p>Much of this thread seems to be devoted to making the point that white people have it easier and need to check their privilege. Well, The 57-year old black man in the Armani suit sounds quite a bit more privileged than the poor white guy with the tats to me, despite occasional excessive attention from loss prevention employees. It’s all relative. That’s all. </p>
<p>I read a book about the case some years ago. Milken’s purported personal take was in the neighborhood of $8 billion, much of it put in the names of his wife and his brother when the investigation came. His junk bond office at Drexel was one of the largest contributors to the nearly trillion dollar savings and loan collapse. In a sweetheart deal, he paid a $200 million penalty (about 3%) and spent 2 years in a federal country club. My ex-brother-in-law served 7 years for hitting the guy that raped his 12 year-old stepdaughter. Which crime was more severe? How many people died because their life savings were taken? </p>
<p>Because his crimes were much more obscure than a shovel to the face, Milken has been allowed to keep most of his money and to rehabilitate his image. If we have learned one thing from S&L, the internet bubble, and the 2007 crash, it is that the bankers almost never suffer.</p>
<p>Huh, did you read my post. I said that my friend has seen the difference in how he is treated in comparison to his white COUNTERPARTS. That means people who are the same age and of the same socio-economic level as he. I was trying to point out that comparing a 57 year-old professional black man with a tatted up young white man is a specious argument. Throwing out the tatted man as an argument for the fact that white male privilege doesn’t exist is ridiculous. Of course it is all relative. However, blind disregard for the actual privilege that is out there based on specious arguments needs to be pointed out. Saying to someone, well my kids like vanilla ice-cream so all kids must like vanilla ice cream is of course not true. The same can be said of the person who says, well I am aware of my privileges, so everyone must be aware of the privileges they have in life. Nope, not true. Never going to be true. </p>
<p>I would like to add a positive spin to this with a real life example that happened this week. This is an anecdote not an argument: </p>
<p>I have a client who I will call Debbie. Debbie is a white, middle aged DDS specializing in pediatric dentistry with a degree from one of the universities at the top of Hunt’s Prestigiosity thread. I think she and her husband grew up middle class, but are now quite wealthy (yacht with staff wealthy). She no longer maintains a private practice but does all volunteer dentistry in a mobile clinic that serves low income children around our state. They stay in one location for a week at a time and serve clients referred by local schools and social service agencies. They work in urban, ex-urban, rural agricultural and rural resourced based communities.</p>
<p>When I saw her yesterday and asked about her week she told me about a presentation that she had given Wednesday at a pediatric dental conference. I asked about her topic and she told me this: When treating children who are living in poverty a dentist needs to take many factors into consideration for effective treatment that they might not consider in their regular practices. She mentioned heightened anxiety and stress responses, actual physical responses to anesthetics and other things that impact both the actual in “office” procedure and making a treatment plan going forward. She then volunteer that people now more readily consider cultural differences in treating people in office but don’t think about poverty and how a child might respond differently. She was speaking to a group of professionals who I have to assume are fairly successful in life about the importance of not trying to extrapolate from their normal office experience when working with kids in poverty. It was in essence a positive, proactive, well received “check your privilege” talk. </p>
<p>Debbie and her audience have a shared commitment to the goal of access to dental services for children and are all interested in how to improve that service delivery. Nobody is judging her for her race, gender or economic status and she is certainly not judging or introducing guilt into her discussion of privilege based assumptions and how they can get in the way of achieving their shared goal. Her audience HAS status and that’s why they are in a position to help in the first place. These are people who are not making judgements about the clientele and why they are poor or how they got there. They are not acting in a way that is intentionally discriminatory, however they still need reminders and education about how that experience of poverty changes the treatment dynamic and response. </p>
<p>Also, getting back to Fortgang. Does anyone think that some random person came up to Fortgang and said, “Yo! Check your privilege.”? I am guessing that someone said that to him in response to something that he was saying at the time. Was there a better way to say it? Absolutely. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that he Is a child of privilege. Why would he argue otherwise? Failure to appreciate that other people are much less fortunate than he and that his grandfather’s struggles are not his is the very definition of what he is arguing so vehemently against.</p>
<p>Now, I must log off because I now limit myself to the amount of time I spend on CC so that I can spend more time reading. :)</p>
<p>I suggest the standard be that everyone be treated well. Not that everything is the fault of those rich heterosexual white guys, it’s not fair that they are treated better than I. I But that if someone is discriminated against or treated poorly, THAT is the problem. It should not be a problem that others are treated with respect and therefore we need to knock them all down a peg based on the color of their skin or their sex, but that others may be treated poorly.</p>
<p>Doesn’t seem like such a difficult concept. I don’t need to bring everyone else down to build myself up, and feel like I must be a victim because I am just a woman, and guys you’d just better be aware of your privilege being male. Repeating that kind of stuff endlessly is counterproductive. It reinforces ideas that white guys are always at the top of the heap, and the reality is, in a very short time we have come a very long ways in this country. Women have had few rights, and it wasn’t that long ago that we couldn’t even vote. Slavery, segregation plagued us. Pretty soon Caucasians will be the minority in this country, and more families are becoming bi-racial rather quickly.</p>
<p>The best thing people can do to position their families for success is not to have kids young as a single parent, and put priority on education.</p>
<p>Being young, male, and black (assuming you mean that when you say “bi-racial”) does put your son much closer to the suspicion threshold than being old, female, and white, so a minor vehicle code violation would be more likely to trigger a traffic stop for him than you. However, there can be other confounding aspects, such as where and when each of you drives (i.e. if he drives more frequently into a town where the police are stricter on vehicle equipment violations); also, at night, it not necessarily that visible what the age, gender, and race of a driver is (and that may not always be that visible in the day time).</p>
<p>^^And if you drive like a typical middle aged woman, rather slowly and safely. Unlike a young, more aggressive male driver. If he’s speeding or driving aggressively while that headlight was out, it wasn’t because of his skin color. We have a car that the left headlight goes out periodically, it’s kind of annoying, probably an electrical problem. The kids who are rarely home, have been stopped a few times. Me and my husband who are driving the car 95% of the time have never been stopped for that.</p>