Do you think a group of white males who went to Stanford, MIT etc... right after high school, are the same as those who joined the military, yet now work in the same company?
Elizabeth Holmes, who’s father was Christian Holmes IV, a former Vice President of Enron, was a lot more privileged than pretty much anyone reading this now.
The idea that gender alone determines privilege is ridiculous. It’s far more complex. Yet hiring a pedigreed Elizabeth Holmes would be “diversity” but hiring some West Virginia white male community college grad from a coal miner family would be “Privilege.” That’s ridiculous. Hiring a black Princeton grad is “diversity” but hiring a white University of El Paso grad is “privilege.”
If people really care about diversity, they’d hire for diversity of experience or diversity of thought rather than diversity of biology.
White privilege is seeing that politicians are mainly white men, that the people often cast as the heroes of movies and TV shows and books are white men, that nearly everything in society characterizes the "good guy" or the ideal person as being a white man. (I also hope that you learned about the history of how people of color, especially black men, where presented in society.)
It's also why white people are not afraid of being murdered by cops as they reach for their car registration and insurance. Or as they answer the door to a belligerent, entitled, drunk, off-duty cop who attempts to B&E into their home. [1] (This sort of thing never, ever happens to white people.)
The privilege isn't something as superficial as more money: it's significantly deeper. It's summarized as the notion that being a white man means every opportunity is available to you and there are no closed doors.
Perhaps a better way to think about it is that white privilege is the absence of any systematic biases or abuses based upon your gender or skin complexion.
[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/24/dallas-police-...
Of course our politicians are white. And we're not afraid to be murdered by cops because cop violence is next to non existent in there.
It'd be interesting to hear how there're "no closed doors" and "every opportunity is available" to nobody since whole population is white. Yeah, right, everybody is white and rich and healthy and has plenty of opportunities :) Especially the older generation that grew up in soviet times and lived through 90s :)
Relations with western europe, both on political and personal level, is a wide topic as well...
I'm pretty sure average black american is more privileged than average eastern european. So how about black privilege? Or is it just people in different countries and in different socioeconomic status face different issues, regardless of color...
Most European societies are extremely homogenous: racially and culturally. Naturally, those counties' social ails are vastly different from the heterogenous society that is the US.
Alsooooo you really didn't get my post at all. The first thing I wrote is that white privilege has a casual relationship with how society treats you. It only incidentally/implcitly affects finances. It's actually humorous that you believe white privilege = someone gives you money.
It's awesome if you agree that "white privilege" is nonsense outside of US. But I bumped into way too many people who bring this bullshit to Europe as well. Hearing about that in Eastern europe is even funnier.
Why post your american-centric stuff as reply to euro post then?
> Most European societies are extremely homogenous
You might want to double-check that. And I'm not even talking about recent migration in Western Europe. For example, 25% of Estonia population is Russian. South Tyrol. Whole Switzerland is one big multi-lingual clusterfuck. Different parts of UK are not exactly identical either. Spain/Catalunya thing is kinda interesting too. Jewish communities are smaller (or entirely deleted) nowadays, but there's still a lot of memory in general population.
> It's actually humorous that you believe white privilege = someone gives you money.
I'm not talking about money either.
Come visit me in Louisiana and I will show its a socio-economic issue, not a race issue.
As a white person, you have the luxury of not thinking about race. That's one of your privileges.
If you're a person of color, it's impossible to not think about race all of the time.
Also, it's evident that you're not being a genuine conversational partner here: you clearly didn't even read the first sentence of the post I linked earlier. You keep believing that white privilege = someone comes to your door to give you money.
Let's pretend for a second white privilege exists, why would I as white male, give-up something that actually benefits me in this world? Are you going to purposefully make life harder for yourself?
I don't believe that, I also don't believe that "my writing implies that" - dont put words in my mouth, it's aggravating to play that game.
> Do you expect me to enumerate all the possible ways?
I'm asking specifically what this brings to a software team; just a few good (general) examples will do. I can't see how I answered that; Are you saying the answer is only in "very specific examples of software"?
> don't you think about your life experience has been shaped by your gender and race
Yes, but nothing to do with my programming contributions
My goal with this post is to convince people to not just limit their views of diversity to race and gender, but also look beyond those 2 to care about the other ways each of us bring in diverse perspectives as well.
However, please don't ignore history. Reality is not neat and tidy: there's never a blank slate from which to build anew. Everything real exists in context and has a past, which constrains its possible futures.
Correlation is an important concept because it is evidence of association. And while it's true that associations can be non causal, many associations are causal.
For example, let's run with this description: a white, heterosexual man with XY chromosomes living and growing up in America. There are few absolutely correct inferences made from such a description (e.g. that the individual was and is still benefiting from a soceity built by and for people like him). On the other hand, there are a number of inferences we can make about such an individual that are likely to be true. Or that street true to a varying degree. E.g. we might say that such an individual is likely to view people of color with disdain. Or view women as sexual obejects that exist soley for his pleasure.
Certainly those last two inferences are only correlative. While many men are taught to view women as sexual objects and many white people are taught to believe that people of color are inferior, one can never make such an inference with 0 error.
Working our way back to the conversation thread: correlations are useful for decision making. If I'm hiring people for software jobs, I cannot exclude anyone for their personal, core characteristics of their skin complexion, sex, gender, nationality, ancestry, or age. I can, however, realize that due to the soceity we live in and how it treats people, it's likely that the men applying to my (fictional) company are likely to have some similar viewpoints. And that my woman applicants are also likely to have some similar viewpoints, which are going to be different from the men. Similar reasoning to all of those other characteristics I mentioned above. Knowing history and observing society, I would certainly use such society-level correlations to inform my recruiting strategy.
E.g. Do men take proactive steps to ensure they aren't victims of sexual assualt? On the whole, they do not. Conversely, women often think about this reality and plan around it -- "go out with a friend" or "call me when you get home" or "walk with your keys through the fingers of your hand when you go to your car at night" or "carry pepper spray on your bag". If I'm making a ride sharing service, I better take into consideration that a room full of white men probably won't think about drivers sexually assaulting passengers.
I sincerely hope that my writing here is insightful and informative as to why gender and racial diversity are important in cultivating intellectual and emotional diversity.
It's not clear from this whether it's just your stereotypes that are acceptable or can anyone join in?
As an aside, I happen to find your gross characterisations objectionable. And yes, I find your writing insightful and informative. But not in a good way.
That's not at all what I wrote. I wrote that due to how society treats certian groups of people, there is a bag of correlated effects that members of said group have likely experienced. Therefore, it's also likely that those same individuals have had certian life experiences that members of other groups are likely to not have experienced. If you're for bringing different experiences to the table and you ignore this, then I'd seriously doubt your motivations.
Diversity metrics based on the color of your skin or the country where you were born are an awful way to assess actual diversity of thought. It's much more about your own personal experiences regardless of your environment. It's a shame that's hard to quantify so everyone ignores it.
However, I do think that gender and race have an influence on your thought processes because of who you tend to associate with.
In addition, she spent 15 years in China, which is definitely not very common here in the US. That alone means she's going to think somewhat differently than the average engineer.
And finally, a lack of diversity in a group (all white hetero males, for example) indicates an attempt to exclude diversity, though perhaps subconsciously.