Straight, White Males - No Longer the World Rulers?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/03/based-on-forbes-most-powerful-people.html

So... interesting link.

Perhaps straight white men don't have the stranglehold on power that we once thought they did, considering this list... which, in all honesty, is thought-provoking.

Queue the arguments that the patriarchy is still enemy #1 in 1... 2... 3... ;)

The idea that white (anglo-saxon) men have held a stranglehold on power is still one of the most contrived and ultimately false concepts ever to pervade the 20th century political culture. I'm sorry but its almost like people forget Gamal Abdel Nasser, Thatcher, Dido of Carthage, Various Queens of England/Britain simply did not exist, and this is before we examine how men of power are assisted, supported (or manipulated) by their wives. If one was to say that men (excluding concepts of ethnic origin) control the venues of power. Then yes I would concur.

Except that only appears that way if you stop at number fucking 5. There isn't another woman until you hit #20 and half of the top 20 are at least passably white (half of the top five are too). Sorry, I don't quite see it. The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

As a side note, did they seriously argue that celibate people are genderless? That's just fucking insulting, to the genderless and the celibate. (celibacy has nothing to do with gender, it isn't even a sexual orientation, as you can be celibate no matter who you are or are not attracted to)

EDIT: Just thought I'd point out that by my best count 36 of the people in the top 72 are white guys, though I may be off since I'm not some omniscient determiner of gender and race.

Fraser Greenfield:
The idea that white (anglo-saxon) men have held a stranglehold on power is still one of the most contrived and ultimately false concepts ever to pervade the 20th century political culture.

Interesting... and I won't say "yay" or "nay" to the argument but I will say that you certainly aren't alone in thinking that the whole "patriarchy" argument is a ridiculous sham.

:)

I'm sorry but its almost like people forget Gamal Abdel Nasser, Thatcher, Dido of Carthage, Various Queens of England/Britain simply did not exist, and this is before we examine how men of power are assisted, supported (or manipulated) by their wives. If one was to say that men (excluding concepts of ethnic origin) control the venues of power. Then yes I would concur.

Well perhaps for the moment...

DUN DUN DUN...

:D

Revnak:
Except that only appears that way if you stop at number fucking 5. There isn't another woman until you hit #20 and half of the top 20 are at least passably white (half of the top five are too). Sorry, I don't quite see it. The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

How should we deal with it?

As a side note, did they seriously argue that celibate people are genderless? That's just fucking insulting, to the genderless and the celibate. (celibacy has nothing to do with gender, it isn't even a sexual orientation, as you can be celibate no matter who you are or are not attracted to)

I think you might have misunderstood that part... or be taking offense where... nevermind. You're right, we should offer 38 different orientations like Facebook does now. Like, "Celibate Bisexual but Not Having Sex but Preferring Men but Sometimes Curious" ... "Cisgender but Open to Experimentation" ...

Sigh.

Just label yourself whatever you want. I certainly do.

I'm a gnome.

Unfortunately, straight white males will always be "perceived" as the ones in power, no matter how things change in the future. Having to take everyone's shit is one thing when you are in charge, but having to take everyone's shit and not even getting to be in charge is going to be a nightmare.

Also, there isn't an issue with straight white men being in power because they don't "look after their own" like minorities do. At least, no straight white man every gave me free crap.

The Gnome King:

Revnak:
Except that only appears that way if you stop at number fucking 5. There isn't another woman until you hit #20 and half of the top 20 are at least passably white (half of the top five are too). Sorry, I don't quite see it. The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

How should we deal with it?

Treating people fairly. Representing them fairly. Enforcing some measure of equal opportunity. Overcoming our personal biases. Calling out the biases of others. Obviously equal rights under the law. That kind of stuff.

Sometimes this means criticizing biased individuals or media (and generally no further). Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I do think that some of these kinds of things will be difficult, and they are definitely a compromise of ideals in order to deal with a difficult reality, but simply granting people equal rights under the law is probably not enough to get the job done quickly or fully.

"Celibacy has no gender." Oh, wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation. Who you like and whether you choose to act on those likes has nothing to do with what gender you identify as. Do we know whether the pope likes dudes or girls? No, because as a celibate person he cannot act upon any such urges, but that has to do with his sexual orientation. Do we know what gender he sees himself as? I don't, but that's a different subject from the previous question.

As for the rest, I agree with Revnak that it's rather intellectually dishonest to pick only the top five and hold them up as the standard. I'm sorry, but that goes against basic sample size structure. Five people are not representative of a population in any way. The rules are that you need at -least- thirty people for a population to start being considered normal.

Revnak:

The Gnome King:

Revnak:
Except that only appears that way if you stop at number fucking 5. There isn't another woman until you hit #20 and half of the top 20 are at least passably white (half of the top five are too). Sorry, I don't quite see it. The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

How should we deal with it?

Treating people fairly. Representing them fairly. Enforcing some measure of equal opportunity. Overcoming our personal biases. Calling out the biases of others. Obviously equal rights under the law. That kind of stuff.

Sometimes this means criticizing biased individuals or media (and generally no further). Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I do think that some of these kinds of things will be difficult, and they are definitely a compromise of ideals in order to deal with a difficult reality, but simply granting people equal rights under the law is probably not enough to get the job done quickly or fully.

So, when you say women should be granted larger scholarships to pursue engineering...

You're saying that they're inferior and need help? Or superior and deserve advantages? I don't understand where this is coming from; women already outnumber men in university graduation rates, why do they need more scholarships?

lumenaide:

Revnak:

The Gnome King:

How should we deal with it?

Treating people fairly. Representing them fairly. Enforcing some measure of equal opportunity. Overcoming our personal biases. Calling out the biases of others. Obviously equal rights under the law. That kind of stuff.

Sometimes this means criticizing biased individuals or media (and generally no further). Sometimes this means changing laws that are clearly discriminatory, while other times it means creating laws that are in order to counter inequality elsewhere (like larger college grants for women pursuing an education in engineering or whatever).

I do think that some of these kinds of things will be difficult, and they are definitely a compromise of ideals in order to deal with a difficult reality, but simply granting people equal rights under the law is probably not enough to get the job done quickly or fully.

So, when you say women should be granted larger scholarships to pursue engineering...

You're saying that they're inferior and need help? Or superior and deserve advantages? I don't understand where this is coming from; women already outnumber men in university graduation rates, why do they need more scholarships?

Engineering is a generally male dominated field. That is why I specifically said engineering. And no, I don't think that they are either, I admitted that it was a compromise made necessary by an unfair society. I suppose it would be nice if we could all cling to our ideals and just let a fair world be fair, but the world isn't fair, and it will take some doing to make it so.

These kinds of things aren't what make up most of the solution though. Most of it really is just getting past personal biases and the like. I just don't want to sound disingenuous and not point out that sometimes the law has to be a bit "unfair" so that things can actually be made fair. Sometimes we have to compromise our ideals for the sake of actually moving forward to a society where such ideals can be realized.

Nah, I don't buy the article. The Forbes list itself is contrived and rather spurious - take a look at the factors they took into account and you'll see what I mean.
Or just look at the list. Gems like putting the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan below that of Apple (particularly when Tim Cook's performance has been.... lacklustre). Or Putin above Obama (I'd be tempted to put him below Xi Jinping as well, but there we go). Or putting Cameron above Hollande. Or putting the king of Saudi anywhere in the top 20. It's generally too heavy on financial leaders (though that's to be expected from Forbes).

And as Revnak said, that's only the top 5 - the rest of the list is rather more... conventional. That's not to say that I agree with every single aspect of patriarchy theory (though generally it has some merit) but this isn't a good argument against it.

Also, lol at the Pope apparently being genderless because of celibacy. You might as well argue he's outright gay because God is portrayed as male.

are we looking at the same list? wait no we are only looking at the top five, go see the rest of the list and marvel at the rich male paleness cheesecake that is the base of rich and powerful mountain. Likewise look at the list of billionaires and you might notice a similar trend.

Also let us not forget that politicians are beholden to the companies that have donated them campaign funds, as such only the pope doesn't have to think about companies when he makes his decisions, as the restrictions of his power are only limited to God and the faith of Catholics.

So yeah the power is still very much rich, white and male.

Did anyone say that straight white men are the only rulers? Yes, there's a number of exceptions, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of people in power tend towards being straight, white, and male.

The Gnome King:
Interesting... and I won't say "yay" or "nay" to the argument but I will say that you certainly aren't alone in thinking that the whole "patriarchy" argument is a ridiculous sham.

Yeah. There are plenty of people who have not read a single book on the topic but think they understand it.

Often, these people imagine that linking to some kind of tangential topic which no relevance to the concept of patriarchy at all but which nonetheless contradicts whatever ludicrous image they have in their head should function as an appropriate criticism of the concept. They are then often disappointed when others point out (correctly) the lack of relevance, and often quick to resort to allegations of unfalsifiability.

I don't know what to say at this point. I've explained patriarchy hundreds of times on this forum. I've provided genuine counterarguments to the concept, both from my own reasoning and that of others. What do you want me to say to this? What do you imagine this says or "disproves" that I haven't heard before?

You wouldn't do this with any other subject, I hope. You wouldn't post an article about people cooperating to create an allotment and then say "see, sociological conflict theory is a ridiculous sham!" You wouldn't post a picture of someone throwing a ball and say "gravity is a ridiculous sham!" You wouldn't post a picture of the crocoduck and say "evolution is a ridiculous sham!"

What is different about this? Is it because it's just silly womens' stuff and therefore can't possibly be complex enough as to require actual work to understand?

OneCatch :
Nah, I don't buy the article. The Forbes list itself is contrived and rather spurious - take a look at the factors they took into account and you'll see what I mean.
Or just look at the list. Gems like putting the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan below that of Apple (particularly when Tim Cook's performance has been.... lacklustre). Or Putin above Obama (I'd be tempted to put him below Xi Jinping as well, but there we go). Or putting Cameron above Hollande. Or putting the king of Saudi anywhere in the top 20. It's generally too heavy on financial leaders (though that's to be expected from Forbes).

And as Revnak said, that's only the top 5 - the rest of the list is rather more... conventional. That's not to say that I agree with every single aspect of patriarchy theory (though generally it has some merit) but this isn't a good argument against it.

Also, lol at the Pope apparently being genderless because of celibacy. You might as well argue he's outright gay because God is portrayed as male.

Totally oblivious to facts like that of Putin being pretty much a dictator, therefore having total (theoretical) power over the whole Russia, while Obama, and to a lesser extent Xi Jin Ping are bounded to their respective parties and whatnot.

Similarly, Hollande's rep has suffered a lot lately, even if you specifically think that France is without a doubt more powerful than UK. He isn't at a good possition to be asking favors and forcing deals right now.

And what to say about the saudis... You know that we depend on their oil, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, the west desperatedly needs their oil supplies to survive and that why the US won't ever stop licking their ass even if they are the ones financing (a lot of) terrorism right? That guy pretty much has the strangle wire at the west's neck, and he's not in the top #5 of the list because they could be invaded, eventually, if things went veeery very wrong for EU+US.

Btw have Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan been great on their actions lately? I didn't notice.

Qvar:

OneCatch :
Nah, I don't buy the article. The Forbes list itself is contrived and rather spurious - take a look at the factors they took into account and you'll see what I mean.
Or just look at the list. Gems like putting the heads of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan below that of Apple (particularly when Tim Cook's performance has been.... lacklustre). Or Putin above Obama (I'd be tempted to put him below Xi Jinping as well, but there we go). Or putting Cameron above Hollande. Or putting the king of Saudi anywhere in the top 20. It's generally too heavy on financial leaders (though that's to be expected from Forbes).

And as Revnak said, that's only the top 5 - the rest of the list is rather more... conventional. That's not to say that I agree with every single aspect of patriarchy theory (though generally it has some merit) but this isn't a good argument against it.

Also, lol at the Pope apparently being genderless because of celibacy. You might as well argue he's outright gay because God is portrayed as male.

Totally oblivious to facts like that of Putin being pretty much a dictator, therefore having total (theoretical) power over the whole Russia, while Obama, and to a lesser extent Xi Jin Ping are bounded to their respective parties and whatnot.

Similarly, Hollande's rep has suffered a lot lately, even if you specifically think that France is without a doubt more powerful than UK. He isn't at a good possition to be asking favors and forcing deals right now.

And what to say about the saudis... You know that we depend on their oil, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, the west desperatedly needs their oil supplies to survive and that why the US won't ever stop licking their ass even if they are the ones financing (a lot of) terrorism right? That guy pretty much has the strangle wire at the west's neck, and he's not in the top #5 of the list because they could be invaded, eventually, if things went veeery very wrong for EU+US.

Btw have Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan been great on their actions lately? I didn't notice.

Putin isn't far off being a dictator (though not completely infallible), but Russia doesn't have so much economic, financial, or diplomatic punch anymore (and most of that is coldwar legacy rather than currently earned) and has extremely limited global expeditionary capabilities compared to the US. They're basically relegated to messing in their own backyard, wheras the US meddles everywhere simultaneously, and lets not forget, reads everyone's emails and texts! Plus Obama is generally popular outside the middle east and the US itself. All that somewhat makes up for the constitutional limitations placed upon him.
China I'll concede (I did say 'tempted' after all), though I think it's important to note that China is in the ascendant - their influence is only going to grow, which puts the existing elite in a strong position.

Hollade's reputation has suffered, but the French still retain more post-colonial influence in places like Algeria, Mali, Gabon, etc. And they've got an independent nuclear deterrent, whereas the UK doesn't (we basically rely on the US for nukes). Plus David Cameron is in a coalition with his ideological opposites - particularly with regard to foreign policy - which limits him to some degree. Plus we're increasingly ostracised from the EU.

The Saudis do what the West tells them. Oil can be sourced from alternatives, and without oil their military (which, incidentally, buys most of it's decent gear from the West) goes down the drain, and without that the monarchy is fucked - you'd be looking at another Tunisia. The US put them in power in the first place. Western governments don't do anything about human rights there because they can't be arsed, not because they can't exert pressure.

Goldman Sachs and JP haven't done anything good but that doesn't mean they don't have influence. Sach's political connections shaped the entire financial crisis (why do you think Lehman didn't get bailed?). They funded both Obama and Romney at the last election, and Obama and McCain at the one before. It's not uncommon for them to be the largest donors in campaign funding. That buys influence.
JP is just generally massive. All Apple do is get involved in fucking patent wars with Samsung. Major, but not even the same ballpark as the meddling of the larger financial organisations.

So no, not totally oblivious, just a different point of view.

Interesting that people are choosing to notice the Apex Fallacy only now that the narrative of "SWMs rule the world" is being questioned. Up until now people have been perfectly happy noting that most CEOs[1] are white males and concluding that "white male privilege" must therefore operate at all levels of society. I'm not saying the conclusion there is necessarily wrong, but the reasoning is certainly faulty.

Revnak:
The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

I'd be interested in knowing how you define "the majority of powerful people", because I can almost guarantee that if we looked on a global level, and tallied up all the positions of government, business or military prestige, most of the individuals in those positions would be men, but most would also be non-white. Perhaps if you're talking in terms of absolute wealth, or the heads of state of superpowers, that might be approaching a correct statement, but as it stands, it's bewildering. I mean: the majority of the world is non-white. Consider all the African nations, the entirety of Asia, and most of South America (depending on whether we're counting Hispanic as White for sake of argument). How many white people are in positions of power in those countries? A piffling minority.

Secondly, you say "we should deal" with the high proportion of whites in positions of power. Why? Because of the implication that any inequality in outcome is evidence of prejudice/privilege? Would you also recommend that we cap the number of Jewish people in finance, and the number of Asians in STEM, or does your social planning only extend to bad ol' whiteys?

[1] In Western countries, that is - wouldn't want to muddy the data by considering the global situation!

Males? Sure, that's undeniable, especially after so many years of women not having equal rights.
White, not really. I see a lot of Asian and Middle Eastern people on that list.
If anything, this list lacks black people. The only other black person on that list besides Obama (and he's half black as far as I know) is at number 64.

It's pretty confusing to include sexuality in the OP. None of the top 5 are non-Straight, and I'm fairly sure the vast majority of the list will be straight as well. In fact, a significant number of them discriminate against gay people.

Of those 72, I see only 9 women, as well, which means that gender is still a massive factor.

That blog's conclusion is... well, it's just wrong. It's not at all an accurate conclusion, based on that list.

HardkorSB:
Males? Sure, that's undeniable, especially after so many years of women not having equal rights.
White, not really. I see a lot of Asian and Middle Eastern people on that list.
If anything, this list lacks black people. The only other black person on that list besides Obama (and he's half black as far as I know) is at number 64.

I see a lot of white people on that list. In fact, there are 39 white people on that list of 72 persons.

Batou667:

I'd be interested in knowing how you define "the majority of powerful people", because I can almost guarantee that if we looked on a global level, and tallied up all the positions of government, business or military prestige, most of the individuals in those positions would be men, but most would also be non-white.

How do we suppose we go about quantifying the relevant individual's power if we go through all the positions of power, everywhere, on every level? Even the Forbes listing is highly speculative, and that is only trying to list the most visible people (of which, as I said, more than half are white).

The Gnome King:
http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2014/03/based-on-forbes-most-powerful-people.html

So... interesting link.

Perhaps straight white men don't have the stranglehold on power that we once thought they did, considering this list... which, in all honesty, is thought-provoking.

Queue the arguments that the patriarchy is still enemy #1 in 1... 2... 3... ;)

So, by confusing two separate feminist theories (patriarchy and normativity, respectively)in your initial post you are hoping to prove what exactly? That you are making uniformed assertions based on flawed understanding of the things you are trying to criticize? Evilthecat has already, rather eloquently, addressed this so I won't waste your time or mine repeating his arguments.

I'd rather point out that patriarchy theory is completely disinterested in ethnicity. It is a sociological theory about how a majority of societies has historically been constructed in such a way as to reward masculine behavior in men while relegating women to positions of submission.

The idea of "straight, white men" is originally a part of the normativity line of theories, particularly hetero normativity and gender normativity. It is the idea that straight, white men (in western society) have a comparatively better social position when compared to women, QGLBT people or other ethnicities because western society is constructed to consider white, straight men the norm and everyone else as "other".

That you fail to realize that the two are separate reflects both poorly at your understanding of these issues. Either way, your closing statement seems less interested in discussion than it seems interested in delivering a "take that!" at feminism. A take that which you failed to set up very well and which falls flat due to your own lack of understanding of the topic.

Revnak:
The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

Given your replies regarding this statement thus far I interpret your position as a matter of jealously more than a matter of righteouness. Unless you can demonstrate *why* this is an injustice, it cannot be interpreted any other way.

The majority of childcare workers are female. Injustice?
The majority of refuse collectors are male. Injustice?
The majority of college grads are women. Injustice?
The majority of hockey players are white. Injustice?

The concentration of power in these discussions wreaks of entitlement. Your solutions have already been implemented, and often show a direct reversal of their intended affects. Nor is the enforcement of said policies any less victim to the biases of those who feel slighted by their perceived injustices of the world. You aren't fixing any issue other than pronoun usage to those holding and maintaining high status in our society.

Government doesn't have to be demographically reflective of the population in order to function. We don't need 51% women, we don't need 25% homosexuals, we don't need 10% pansexuals, 5% midgets, 5% transgenders, 1% clowns, 1% Scientologists or whatever the fuck else percentages of the population and it's idiotically growing amount of self identifications to be presented in *powerful* positions of the world.

It doesn't matter who "rules" the world, because the power disparities with always favor those positions, not the people in them. That's why this discussion is utterly pointless; it's like talking about what color paint will make a car run better.

Stephen Sossna:

How do we suppose we go about quantifying the relevant individual's power if we go through all the positions of power, everywhere, on every level? Even the Forbes listing is highly speculative, and that is only trying to list the most visible people (of which, as I said, more than half are white).

I think a more culture-fair measure would be to look at something like wealth as a percent of their country's GDP, or the number of people governed by or working under a person, or political influence, or number of religious followers. Yes, the Forbes list already goes some way to acknowledging this, but with only 72 nominees ("One for every 100 million people in the world") it effectively limits itself to the "celebrity" figures acting on the world stage and ignores the vast multitude of local political figures, gang leaders, religious and community leaders that hold more sway on the individual, human level.

Anyway, the Forbes list has a very, VERY West-centric and Anglophone-centric bias to it, with a few exceptions, mostly foreign heads of state and political figures. It's also very focused on current affairs and, by its own admission, subjective. (Where on the list is Pranab Mukherjee, president of a nuclear and space-capable country of 1.2 billion people? Not a first-world country, not at war with us; doesn't matter!) That a list with such an Occidental focus features a lot of white people shouldn't surprise us in the least.

The relative lack of women would be a more valid complaint, and I think the solution to that is a combination of removing barriers to female participation, and for women to work harder.

Power is getting your way. Obama is the President of the United states, and I'm sure it's a fun job. But he was put there by women. If only men voted, he would not be President today.

So, he is more like a chauffeur. He may look like he's driving, but he is taking the car where the lady in the back seat tells him to go.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gender-gap-2012-election-obama_n_2086004.html

Men, at least in the US, are not really running anything.

I don't know much about how Putin took power. Another topic?

Gorfias:
Power is getting your way. Obama is the President of the United states, and I'm sure it's a fun job. But he was put there by women. If only men voted, he would not be President today.

Maybe not, but the only other option they had was another man. In fact, all the options in every election since the United States was founded have been men.

Gorfias:
So, he is more like a chauffeur. He may look like he's driving, but he is taking the car where the lady in the back seat tells him to go.

This is a bit silly. The idea that a President is only beholden to one voting demographic, rather than the lobbyists, and the fundraisers, and the businesses, and the party, and the other significant voting demographics, is quite absurd.

Besides, I suspect women would primarily vote democrat regardless.

DevilWithaHalo:

The majority of childcare workers are female. Injustice?
The majority of refuse collectors are male. Injustice?
The majority of college grads are women. Injustice?
The majority of hockey players are white. Injustice?

If large number of people are denied access to those positions solely due to gender/skin color, or discouraged from even seeking them, then yes, it is an injustice.

If the issue is that people simply don't want to have those positions, or are for some othe reasons not as able to handle the requirements of those positions, then not really.
What did these examples have to do with anything?

Silvanus:

This is a bit silly. The idea that a President is only beholden to one voting demographic, rather than the lobbyists, and the fundraisers, and the businesses, and the party, and the other significant voting demographics, is quite absurd.

Besides, I suspect women would primarily vote democrat regardless.

Well, Gorf is kind of right on the entire "chauffeur" analogy, exactly because the president's beholden to all those. Of course, Obama can veer off track now and then, but must maintain enough political capital not to cross them too badly, assuming he wants to stay in power.

My opinion on this, however, is; it's less important what a leader is, and more important what policies they endeavor towards. If a president is going for gender equality, does it matter whether they're male or female? If they are going for a better social safety net and reducing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor, does it matter if they're a former union member or a former CEO of a multinational company? Provided they're competent at their job, of course.

I don't know, I understand there's a lot of narrowmindedness involved and many people will still scoff at the notion of a female president, just like many people will still scoff at the notion of a "liberal" president. Or until recently in case of USA, a black president.

Still, it's more important what they do once they're in the leadership position than their gender, race, religious denomination or preferred choice of attire.

Vegosiux:

Silvanus:

This is a bit silly. The idea that a President is only beholden to one voting demographic, rather than the lobbyists, and the fundraisers, and the businesses, and the party, and the other significant voting demographics, is quite absurd.

Besides, I suspect women would primarily vote democrat regardless.

Well, Gorf is kind of right on the entire "chauffeur" analogy, exactly because the president's beholden to all those. Of course, Obama can veer off track now and then, but must maintain enough political capital not to cross them too badly, assuming he wants to stay in power.

But the lady in the backseat in the analogy, would actually be a group of (mostly) white men (lobbyists, politicians, rich funders etc...).
Less so than he had to now that he is in his second term ofcourse, but he does need to keep some good will to not send lobbyists and funders away from the party, and to keep politicians friendly(ish) enough to be able to work with them on legislation (yeah, good luck on that).

nyysjan:

But the lady in the backseat in the analogy, would actually be a group of (mostly) white men (lobbyists, politicians, rich funders etc...).
Less so than he had to now that he is in his second term ofcourse, but he does need to keep some good will to not send lobbyists and funders away from the party, and to keep politicians friendly(ish) enough to be able to work with them on legislation (yeah, good luck on that).

Well, yes, I only agreed to the "chauffeur" part, since as Silvanus said, there's quite a crowd back there in the back seat.

But that's the thing with democratic government types, the elected leaders do more "steering" than "leading", as opposed to despots like for example Putin. To say nothing of the likes of the Saudi royal family or the like.

Revnak:
Except that only appears that way if you stop at number fucking 5. There isn't another woman until you hit #20 and half of the top 20 are at least passably white (half of the top five are too). Sorry, I don't quite see it. The majority of "powerful" people in the world are still white dudes despite making up much less than half of the population. This is quite an injustice. We should deal with it.

How is it injustice? It doesn't become injustice just by stating it is. Whether or not a minority manages to be overrepresented doesn't mean injustice.

Gorfias:
Men, at least in the US, are not really running anything.

Well, apart from the government, military, religion and industry, which tend to be dominated by men.

Obama may have had lots of women vote for him. That doesn't mean women dominate him.

To clarify, yes, he did have to appeal to women more than his opponent, but Obama tends to rely on being less actively scary. "Vote for me, I have no particular interest in taking your rights away" is a terrible strategy, except that it worked.

nyysjan:
What did these examples have to do with anything?

Because this...

nyysjan:
If large number of people are denied access to those positions solely due to gender/skin color, or discouraged from even seeking them, then yes, it is an injustice.

If the issue is that people simply don't want to have those positions, or are for some othe reasons not as able to handle the requirements of those positions, then not really.

...people aren't denied access to political positions. One may make an argument regarding voting results; but that is reflective of the desires of the society, which flies in the face of theories. We can wax poetic about a fair demographic representation all we want; but the votes determine the outcomes.

Nor are they denied access to working any other field. One *may* be able to make an argument regarding opportunity, but it's not a "realistic" argument to make. Not everyone gets a shot at being president. Not everyone gets a free ride through college on a scholarship. Not everyone should be given the opportunity to run a company, etc.

Arguments surrounding advantages and disadvantages for any given circumstance simply equate to special pleading. And I'm not about to support any structure set in place to "correct" an "injustice" that creates new ones, especially when someone can't explain why something is a problem to begin with.

Matters regarding discouragement are so contextual it would be idiotic to simply explain it away on any one thing; especially with a broad a brush as "social expectations".

The only reason anybody from Saudi Arabia and similar middle-eastern nations are on the list is because the wealthy white men in power from the industrailized need their oil, and can't hope to sustain oil production without the help of the local government (to which said westerners have had many coups of said governments in favour of those more sympathetic to the west).

Fraser Greenfield:
The idea that white (anglo-saxon) men have held a stranglehold on power is still one of the most contrived and ultimately false concepts ever to pervade the 20th century political culture.

Despite the fact that the infrastructure for nearly every industrialized country on the planet was set with the interests of heterosexual, white men in mind?

Thats certainly the case for the United States, where things like the right for non-whites and the poor to vote didn't exist until ninty-one years after the Declaration of Independence, and not for women until another fifty-two years after that. Lets not forget slavery, a practice which attempts to abolish it invoked a massive succession and a civil war that nearly destroyed the county, which was legal until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, passed in the house, and adopted in practice.

cthulhuspawn82:
Also, there isn't an issue with straight white men being in power because they don't "look after their own" like minorities do. At least, no straight white man every gave me free crap.

lolwut?

Please read what I just wrote to address the quote I addressed before your's. To say that the white men who set the social and economic infrastructure didn't "look after their own" is probably, no offense intended, one of the most blatantly incorrect things I've seen written on the internet.

evilthecat:
You wouldn't post a picture of the crocoduck and say "evolution is a ridiculous sham!"

Psst, nobody tell evilthecat about Youtube, I think it'll break his fragile heart...

generals3:
How is it injustice? It doesn't become injustice just by stating it is. Whether or not a minority manages to be overrepresented doesn't mean injustice.

I think its more the idea that they're not represented, not due to any choosing, but because there existed mechanisms, some of which still exist today, that serve to deny access to certain groups. It seems in many nations where women are allowed to serve in combat position in the military, and where stigma against such a thing is weaker, that women are still less inclined to participate in a combat position in the military than a man is. The importance there is choice. In a somewhat similar way, in the United States, women are more likely to seek teacher careers among younger students than teachers that are men. Now there's still a bunch of stigmas regarding women teaching older students, as well as stigmas regarding men teaching younger children[1], and these stigams still do have an effect, but its seems more or less that a teacher who is a woman is morely likely to prefer younger students, where teachers who are men are more likely to prefer older students. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as people have the capacity to do as they wish. Unfortunately, there are many barriers remaining, the majority of which are regarding women.

[1] A first-grade teacher who is a woman? Normal. A first-grade teacher who is a man? Its gonna raise some suspicion from a lot of people about as to whether he's a pedophile or not.

MarsAtlas:

I think its more the idea that they're not represented, not due to any choosing, but because there existed mechanisms, some of which still exist today, that serve to deny access to certain groups. It seems in many nations where women are allowed to serve in combat position in the military, and where stigma against such a thing is weaker, that women are still less inclined to participate in a combat position in the military than a man is. The importance there is choice. In a somewhat similar way, in the United States, women are more likely to seek teacher careers among younger students than teachers that are men. Now there's still a bunch of stigmas regarding women teaching older students, as well as stigmas regarding men teaching younger children[1], and these stigams still do have an effect, but its seems more or less that a teacher who is a woman is morely likely to prefer younger students, where teachers who are men are more likely to prefer older students. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as people have the capacity to do as they wish. Unfortunately, there are many barriers remaining, the majority of which are regarding women.

Actually choice isn't enough to prove there is injustice. Only very few people get what they actually want. We can't all be multi-millionaires who get to do whatever they want. Everybody has to make compromises one way or an other. And sometimes due to circumstances you may even get nothing. However that in itself is not "injustice". Unless you reject the whole concept of free market and capitalism (entirely).

And when it comes to those barriers, the only reason why people believe the majority are regarding women (at least in most western nations, countries like Saudi Arabia are a whole different matter) is because the only barriers that are being talked about are those women face. It's an illusion perpetuated by the media, opportunistic politicians and groups who claim to care about everyone.

Not to say everything is perfect. But things are much less one sided than they appear.

[1] A first-grade teacher who is a woman? Normal. A first-grade teacher who is a man? Its gonna raise some suspicion from a lot of people about as to whether he's a pedophile or not.

DevilWithaHalo:
...people aren't denied access to political positions. One may make an argument regarding voting results; but that is reflective of the desires of the society, which flies in the face of theories.

Actually it just supports the idea that such biases are still in place. If I were completely qualified to be serving at a high level of government, lets say a govenor - I've been a diplomat for the federal government, I've been treasurer to the state, lieutenant governor, and even a member of senate for another state, I still couldn't get elected in many states, not because of lack of qualifications, or party affiliation, but because of bigotry. You could take the five most prolific senators in the country, and they come out tomorrow and say, oh, that they're gay? In red states, their own party will try to drive them out of it, and that still happens in blue states too. What if a presidential candidate for either party, a week before the presidential election, came out and said "I'm an atheist" - do you really think that a country in which 40%-50% of the population that evolution is untrue, where upwards of 75% define themselves as some sort of Christian, will vote for an atheist to attain their highest office? You can take the biggest landslide presidential victories in history, and the only three that I think could've survived having the candidate coming out and saying that they're in atheist once they're locked in as their party's candidate would've been Abraham Lincoln (in the midst of the Civil War) and FDR, but only the two where he was up against Hoover, and the 1944 election, and if FDR said he was an atheist in 1932, and still managed to win office, he surely wouldn't have been even nominated by his own party for re-election.

Nor are they denied access to working any other field. One *may* be able to make an argument regarding opportunity, but it's not a "realistic" argument to make. Not everyone gets a shot at being president. Not everyone gets a free ride through college on a scholarship. Not everyone should be given the opportunity to run a company, etc.

*May* not? Surely you jest. Its not even a matter of having the resources bestowed upon them at childhood, its how people who have been demonstrated to have similar resources at birth can't attain the same success. Hell, we've had two presidents now that have grownup in single-parent households, both men, yet not even have had a serious female candidate yet.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked