“I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.”

Such a person would be pilloried as a racist.

It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex. A cursory glance at, say, the New York Times shows that such hostility is in fact pervasive—even, bizarrely, among white men themselves.

I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-...

Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks, you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying to increase its "diversity"—and which one isn't?—what you are actually telling him is we need fewer people like you. And when you realize how many white men support "diversity", et al., you'll understand how bizarre the whole situation really is.

The solution, by the way, is to grow a thick skin, suck it up, and deal. Indeed, there's no other choice at present; in our current political climate, complaining often works wonders for politically favored grievance groups, but no one wants to hear complaints from white men. The political power needed to change this is immense—far greater than the current pathetic attempts to push back (Republicans, the Tea Party, etc.). Best learn to live with it. (I still find it fascinating, though, which is why I can't resist commenting on the phenomenon.)

Wait, what? No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you', and saying we want diversity is NOT an attack. You have a twisted view of fairness if you feel that wanting to be more inclusive is somehow unfair to the people who were already included.

Suppose a conference has 50 speaking slots, 40 of which last year went to white men and 10 of which went to women and "people of color". This year, the organizers are working hard to increase "diversity". For a fixed number of speaking slots, the only way to do this is to decrease the number of white men, since white men—no matter their beliefs, background, hobbies, interests, etc.—don't count as "diverse". Thus, while the organizers' intent is probably not to tell white men that "we need fewer people like you", that message is an inevitable result of efforts to increase "diversity". (Of course, the organizers could also expand the number of speaking slots, but this only works for so long; eventually you'll hit a ceiling, at which point the game again becomes zero-sum.)

I know it's difficult to reconcile these results with the warm & fuzzy feelings you've been taught to associate with "diversity", but it's a mathematical fact: in most of the fields where it's applied, increasing "diversity" means decreasing the number of white men.

It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved.

You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

Just like in anything else in life... for example, in Basketball it is a 'position of privilege' to be tall. It is objectively easier to succeed in basketball if you are tall, but that doesn't mean that those that DO succeed at the highest levels aren't worthy of praise or somehow did not 'earn' their success. LeBron James has HUGE advantages to being good at basketball, but that just set him up to be in a position where he CAN succeed.. the success itself is still all his achievement.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole, has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage. Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life, dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

Dude, you're white—or, at least, you look white [1], which is all the ammunition a Social Justice Warrior needs to accuse you of White Privilege, no matter what your surname is. Realize that, if they ever come after you, it will be people like me who'll defend you.

[1]: From jamesaguilar's HN profile (no cyberstalking required): http://fb.me/james.aguilar

You really need to study the French Revolution. You think that because you're part of the current revolution that it won't eventually consume you as well? Consider Danton and Robespierre, a couple of the original "activists seeking equality" (or, rather, égalité). Danton once thought as you do; on his way to the guillotine he shouted at his former ally, "Robespierre, you will follow me! Your house will be razed! Salt will be sown there!" [1] Robespierre once thought as you do; he met the same fate as Danton less than four months later.

[1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Jacques_Danton, « Robespierre, tu me suis ! Ta maison sera rasée ! On y sèmera du sel ! », my translation

disproportionate victimization with sexual violence

Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf

Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan, and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that racism. [2]

[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...

[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

????? Obviously, I was referring to men as the oppressing group on this point.

Re. the rest, let me make sure I understand your position. "As long as there is someplace black people are worse off than they are in the US, they have nothing to complain about and white privilege doesn't exist." Am I reading you right?

(Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.)

Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?

Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?

Ew. What a gross thought. I guess it's convenient to believe for a privileged person, but, ew.

"It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex."

Nowadays, racism against anyone other than white is despised, and sexism against anyone other than men is despised. Conversely, anti-White racism or anti-male sexism is permitted, and in some circles, condoned and even encouraged. Just the politically correct times that we live in.

The idea is that those two (meritocracy) are not the only criteria used when we select our leaders, employees etc. so they resort to saying:

> It’s not just about that position either.

What I think they are saying is that it is not just about the job, which he would do fine, but also about the job of being a woman so that other women can aspire to be like that, feel motivated that people with less privilege than white men can be leaders too. That way you are more qualified for the job.

Until minorities say it isn't an issue to the same extent white men do, I won't believe prejudice has disappeared. Maybe not then even.

I think you have to acknowledge that a diverse individual brings their experience to a situation. Being part of an interest group gives you greater experience regarding how to advocate for that group.

You're not the only one. Apparently even at what should be an enlightened women's college, sexism (and racism) is alive and well.

I don't know about the "white" part, but putting a man in such a seat would seem to be more appropriate than putting a woman in it.

Doesn't anyone else remember what "diversity" means?

It's just that iiuc, Wellesley doesn't sell "diversity," but "women."

Wellesley's failure to take a stance on having transmen around indicates hesitation and fear on their part (understandably so, imho) b/c who really knows - at this time - what is fair and just for their product case.

Do they count women who became men as women, b/c that's part of the female experience? Or do they count them as men, b/c they're not women? Who knows.

http://vimeo.com/16078350

Maybe so, but do we do the same with discrimination that's very much currently in the effect?

edit: downvotes are really good arguments :^)