this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1389 points (95.0% liked)

Science Memes

11223 readers
2669 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1389
degree in bamf (mander.xyz)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
281 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] southsamurai 66 points 8 months ago (7 children)

When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.

In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the "western" world, they will also be white.

In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what's called colloquially, "mansplaining". He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.

She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn't a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.

Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they're right and whoever they're talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn't both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.

[–] ashenblood 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Citation needed.

In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.

But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.

It's also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.

In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.

https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Privilege is writing off your own privilege as inherent in nature and then pointing at other groups of people going "but they're allowed it's not fair!!!"

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Your barely-in-context paper is not support for your main argument :

However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

Do you have any citations that actually support your claim? Because it sounds like vibes "please don't say mean things about my group" bullshit.

[–] ashenblood 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

That's not my main argument, it's merely a supporting clause.

OP asserted that

white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

I countered that by pointing out that it's obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That's my main argument.

And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.

I obviously can't definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don't need to. I'm not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I'm merely pointing out that it's a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.

Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that's a fair point, but it doesn't really hold any ethical implications, it's simply a description of a material reality.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Personally I believe that large parts of this discussion and topic are simply human nature.

Any group with power, will seek to keep that power, and to increase their standing over the other people. If history had played out differently and asian or black people were the historical in-group we would have the exact same situations and issues as we have today. Only another enemy.

[–] ashenblood 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.

For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If this is your main argument then:

...it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves.

Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious? I still stand by that it's not really relevant so I'll just say that I fully disagree with your argument or the implication that you have somehow proven anything.

I'll repeat something I said in another comment:

It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.

You just pretend you are unaware of massive swaths of history in order to act offended that anyone would make generic statements about an infamously problematic demographic. And you falsely equate any attempt to talk generically about the problematic behaviour to the same issue, as a transparent tactic to suppress discussion of the problematic behaviour entirely.

I'm sure you will have some bullshit response that will annoy me again but I'm gunna try to let it go because I find talking to you unpleasant.

[–] ashenblood 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't your paper you linked imply it isn't so obvious?

Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.

If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you're not being honest with yourself, let alone me.

What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn't crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I'm just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.

In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It's the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The idea that humans are inherently predisposed to subjugate those different from themselves is a fascist belief that fascists say to justify fascism. So.... Not a fan of that line of thought, thanks

[–] ashenblood 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It has nothing to do with subjugation, it's just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I'm not subjugating other people by doing so.

But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It's not humans, it's the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Honestly that last paragraph just doesn't mesh with everything else you said. What on earth are your beliefs?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Normally, I only comment when i have something to add, but I just want to commend you for your high quality contribution to this sensitive topic.

Really learning a lot from this. Your arguments are solid and your phrasing is respectful. Thank you!

[–] ashenblood 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That's really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is news to me because I have been condescended to exponentially more as a decently passing white trans woman by cis white men in particular than I ever was before transition by ANYONE. Worst I ever got from black men was one calling me a "pretty thing" riding past on his bike. White men are getting the most push back as of late because they have historically been the worst offenders. And that hasn't changed yet. That doesn't mean the rest of us are free of guilt, but there is a very obvious frontrunner when it comes to unearned perceived self superiority, conscious or not.

[–] ashenblood 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm sorry that happened to you.

However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be "pushing back" against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.

In fact, you're condescending me right now. You're implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond "this is news to me" (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I'm saying can't possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don't subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.

I'm not sure if that was your intent, that's just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.

[–] southsamurai 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn't in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.

I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.

A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn't inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what's called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).

Here's the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I'm in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.

Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won't change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.

That's the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren't the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn't the way it is is just silly.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer 0 points 8 months ago

Completely agree with your points. But also hope you can see it may be more fruitful to appear as though you're ready to attack the problem, rather than your fellow man.

I say this because I didn't read this as an outright attack or denigration of your fellow man, but I very much fear how easily any other man may interpret it and how it could serve to further the divide and make the problem even harder to address. That is my chief concern.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position fellow internet stranger <3

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the generalization isn't really about white men per se, but about the demographic in power. Give a group unchecked power long enough and they forget how that came to be. I agree that it's not a rule, and maybe should be expressed as more of a heuristic: if you are speaking to someone that is in power, and you don't look like them, they might think you are not empowered.

Don't let the lack of nuance in that statement take away from all the very valid points being made. The plight is real, and hopefully the white men who are enlightened enough to not confuse circumstance with natural order will read and know to not take it personally.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer 2 points 8 months ago

Thank you for the civil discussion.

Completely agree about unchecked power and your interpretation of it as a heuristic rather than an ambiguously defined trait.

I most certainly realize the plight is real and wish it never was like I'd hope all of us can say. But the lack of nuance struck me as dangerous. I understand how disenfranchised men will interpret things, and when people willfully neglect the opportunity to be concise it leaves a worrying amount of room for misinterpretation and effectively is ragebait that can serve to further entrench a misguided incel or the like into their toxic niche.

And for anyone who thinks I'm overreacting: see how Reddit powermod awkward_the_turtle intentionally acted to provoke men, then wrote off everyone who took issue with it as inherently being member of the ideology they were allegedly targeting. Reddit, the company, enabled and encouraged this mod and their collaborators to attack users on their platform indiscriminately.

If Lemmy is to serve as only a new platform for abuse, then it deserves to die with the rest of social media. Please, do not let it come to this. Discuss and debate civilly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.

Isn't she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the "prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her" part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

What other reason would you suggest as to why he would assume that he knows more than her or that she couldn't be the person that he's referring to? Clearly he didn't even know her name yet so what did he have to go by to draw those conclusions? It obviously wasn't her lack of knowledge on the subject that they were discussing now was it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Clearly he knew her name, though. He just didn't know the woman he was speaking to was the woman whose work he was recommending.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And he made that assumption based on? Because, again, we know for a fact she didn't sound ignorant on the topic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

How should I know? Or you, for that matter?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I still don't see why adding the skin color was important, but eh, I have other things to deal with, so I don't really care, just found it slightly annoying.

[–] h3rm17 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Gender not important also, loads of women "mansplain", it's a problem with attitude, not gender or race

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Yep, I hate that word as well, but didn't have the energy to post about it....

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn't because of the illusion created by the society they live in.

I'd have added "(born) middle-class" because that's an important part of it too.