On Being an Oppressed White Male

[Michael Hardner]

I think there`s some confusion as to what August is talking about.

`higher taxes for people who work more` means that if you work more, and earn more, and you will pay more income tax. It doesn`t mean that you should be taxed on the number of hours you work a week.

[Argus]

Apparently Argus agrees...preferring to be Brad Pitt.

I could be Angelina Jolie too... so long as I was a lesbian.

[Moonlight Graham]

I bet to differ. As a woman living in the U.S., I don't see you, a male living in Canada, as hitting the jackpot.

Well, about 50% of the human population lives on $2.50 a day or less (in US dollars, at "purchasing power parity"), so living in a rich, developed country like Canada (or the US) makes me extremely lucky.

Being a white male means i am at an even greater advantage. Simply compare income levels in Canada or the U.S., or virtually any other developed country, of whites to non-whites or between men and women and this fact is quite clear. Same with the % of white men who are CEO's, or who are elected to political office etc. etc.

I'm not trying to be sexist or racist or nationalistic. It is simply a fact that a white male living in a rich, developed country is at an advantage unmatched by any other group (at least that i can think of).

It should be noted that i am a feminist and a strong proponent of equal rights for many groups, and am quite passionate about poverty reduction and improving development in less advantaged countries. So i would argue strongly that white males living in a rich countries have it far too well-off, and equality among all groups improved greatly, even at the expense to my particular demographic.

[Bonam]

...

It should be noted that i am a feminist and a strong proponent of equal rights for many groups, and am quite passionate about poverty reduction and improving development in less advantaged countries. So i would argue strongly that white males living in a rich countries have it far too well-off, and equality among all groups improved greatly, even at the expense to my particular demographic.

I don't know if I've ever read any statement in my years on this forum that I have disagreed with more strongly or been more revolted by.

Please, if you think you are so well off and don't deserve to be, go give your wealth away to all those non-white/male people who you so condescendingly think can't live decent lives without your attempts at misguided altruism. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't know if I've ever read any statement in my years on this forum that I have disagreed with more strongly or been more revolted by.

So groups like women, blacks, aboriginals etc. have been fighting for generations/centuries for equality against the oppression of white males, and yet the moment one actually agrees with them you get a little offended?

Please, if you think you are so well off and don't deserve to be, go give your wealth away to all those non-white/male people who you so condescendingly think can't live decent lives without your attempts at misguided altruism.

I never said non-white non-males can't live decent lives, i said that statistically they are at a general disadvantage in attaining the same income, positions of power etc. Check the sensitivity at the door and wake up and smell the facts, jack.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

So groups like women, blacks, aboriginals etc. have been fighting for generations/centuries for equality against the oppression of white males, and yet the moment one actually agrees with them you get a little offended?

You're making a mistake when you say 'oppression of white males', because that implies that all white males are complicit. This is akin to calling terrorism Islamic terrorism when only a tiny minority of that group is involved in the acts described.

You could use a more generic term such as 'the patriarchy' which recognizes that while the system was piloted by white males, not even a majority of white males would have profited from it.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, about 50% of the human population lives on $2.50 a day or less (in US dollars, at "purchasing power parity"), so living in a rich, developed country like Canada (or the US) makes me extremely lucky.

Yes it does, which is a different observation than your original claim that as a "white male living in Canada you hit the jackpot."

Being a white male means i am at an even greater advantage. Simply compare income levels in Canada or the U.S., or virtually any other developed country, of whites to non-whites or between men and women and this fact is quite clear. Same with the % of white men who are CEO's, or who are elected to political office etc. etc.

There are plenty of white males living in poverty and on the streets. I've seen many of them in Toronto, so don't try to turn it into an 'American thing.' But here's the thing; you are basing it all on money. There are other important things other than money/job opportunities. I'm sure there are many non-white non-Westerners who prefer their life over yours. It's one thing to say you feel fortunate, it's another to say you "hit the jackpot," which implies no one else has it as good as you do being a white male living in Canada; that that's the best one could hope for and what everyone, given a choice, would choose.

That's why I said I disagree. I think I'm very fortunate to be living where I am, but I don't think it's "hitting the jackpot" to have been born in the U.S. as there are many fine countries in this world, and there's no way I would trade being a woman for a man despite the 'advantages' that you feel you/they have.

I'm not trying to be sexist or racist or nationalistic. It is simply a fact that a white male living in a rich, developed country is at an advantage unmatched by any other group (at least that i can think of).

Yet you come across as sexist, racist, and nationalistic. There are many non-whites, male and female, who enjoy the same advantages that you do-- in Canada, and elsewhere. By the same token, there are many white males born into poverty in Canada. It's a very egotistical claim to make that you, being a white male living in Canada, have "hit the jackpot," as it implies you've been dealt the best hand in life; and if you don't consider that sexist, racist, or nationalistic, you'll have to convince me why.

It should be noted that i am a feminist and a strong proponent of equal rights for many groups, and am quite passionate about poverty reduction and improving development in less advantaged countries. So i would argue strongly that white males living in a rich countries have it far too well-off, and equality among all groups improved greatly, even at the expense to my particular demographic.

This is more to the point, and had you originally said that, rather than implying that theres's nothing that compares to being a white male living in Canada-- that that's the best one can be-- I wouldn't have found your post so egotistical and offensive.

But again, there's more to life than economic opportunities, and many people in other countries prefer their customs and way of life to any employment advantages/larger incomes they may have in rich countries. As for myself, the awesome experience of pregnancy and giving birth far outweighs any 'job advantage' I could think of, so I'll happily choose to be a woman.

Edited May 10, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

Well, about 50% of the human population lives on $2.50 a day or less (in US dollars, at "purchasing power parity"), so living in a rich, developed country like Canada (or the US) makes me extremely lucky.

And we should be punished for that?

Being a white male means i am at an even greater advantage. Simply compare income levels in Canada or the U.S., or virtually any other developed country, of whites to non-whites or between men and women and this fact is quite clear. Same with the % of white men who are CEO's, or who are elected to political office etc. etc.

Simplistic twaddle. Everyone has the same opportunities, irregardless of colour or gender. Women have a lower income because they don't work at work the way men do. And minorities are, for the most part, immigrants without the same communications skills as Canadians.

I'm not trying to be sexist or racist or nationalistic. It is simply a fact that a white male living in a rich, developed country is at an advantage unmatched by any other group (at least that i can think of).

Generally speaking Gay men have a higher income than white men in general. Do you feel we should punish them for that, perhaps apply a special gay tax on them and hand that over to the brown people?

It should be noted that i am a feminist and a strong proponent of equal rights for many groups, and am quite passionate about poverty reduction and improving development in less advantaged countries.

Oh you are, are you? You're going to help them for their own good, right? Are you going to overthrow their governments and take over? Because that's about the only way I can think of to radically lessen third world poverty. After all, it is their own corrupt governments which are largely responsible for poverty in the third world.

[Moonlight Graham]

But again, there's more to life than economic opportunities, and many people in other countries prefer their customs and way of life to any employment advantages/larger incomes they may have in rich countries. As for myself, the awesome experience of pregnancy and giving birth far outweighs any 'job advantage' I could think of, so I'll happily choose to be a woman.

Well, i'll certainly agree with this. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being a woman or non-white etc. And yes my observations are based on statistics, meaning they are generalizations with many exceptions as i've made clear. I mean, Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey have it a hell of a lot better than i do! And yes i would say much of my observations are economics and job opportunities, hence my original claim that "i hit the jackpot", a reference to winning the lottery.

[Moonlight Graham]

And we should be punished for that?

No. But people should do more to try to fix the problem.

Simplistic twaddle. Everyone has the same opportunities, irregardless of colour or gender. Women have a lower income because they don't work at work the way men do. And minorities are, for the most part, immigrants without the same communications skills as Canadians.

Idealistic twaddle. Empirical evidence (ie: thousands of statistics) disagree with you.

Oh you are, are you? You're going to help them for their own good, right? Are you going to overthrow their governments and take over? Because that's about the only way I can think of to radically lessen third world poverty. After all, it is their own corrupt governments which are largely responsible for poverty in the third world.

Overthrow them and replace them with what? Another corrupt government? Corrupt governments are only one factor among many which explain poverty in the developing world. Colonialism/imperialism, tendencies of global capitalism, trade laws, ethnic conflicts, political instability, third world debt (which in itself has many causes), certain polices by the IMF/World Bank (ie: structural adjustment policies), aid dependency etc.

[Argus]

No. But people should do more to try to fix the problem.

Why should my money go to fixing someone else's problems? I have my own problems.

Idealistic twaddle. Empirical evidence (ie: thousands of statistics) disagree with you.

No, they actually don't disagree with me. You simply only read the surface of such statistics. The fact is that people born in Canada, male or female, black or white, who put in the same efforts, and have the same skills and experience, get paid largely the same money. Now Blacks are less likely to finish high school - as a collective. And women are less likely to have the same amount of experience - as a collective. This is due to varients in culture between blacks and whites, between men and women, not to innate discrimination.

Overthrow them and replace them with what? Another corrupt government? Corrupt governments are only one factor among many which explain poverty in the developing world.

By far the most important one. Which is why nations which have very valuable resources are still poverty stricken hells. Nigeria has lots of oil. Has it made their lives better? Zimbabwe used to be Africa's bread basket. Now they'd starve were it not for western charity.

[Michael Hardner]

Why should my money go to fixing someone else's problems? I have my own problems.

For a couple of foundational reasons:

1) You care about other people.

You see other people as your brothers and sisters, and you care what happens to your fellow man.

AND/OR

2) You care about yourself.

Social problems can and do come up to your front door. Crime, tax rates, education ... all of these issues affect what kind of society we live in. No man is an island, though some are peninsulas. And as I like to say... even the Unabomber went into town to buy nails now and again.

No, they actually don't disagree with me. You simply only read the surface of such statistics. The fact is that people born in Canada, male or female, black or white, who put in the same efforts, and have the same skills and experience, get paid largely the same money. Now Blacks are less likely to finish high school - as a collective. And women are less likely to have the same amount of experience - as a collective. This is due to varients in culture between blacks and whites, between men and women, not to innate discrimination.

Unproven and unprovable. Where does culture start and end ? Who defines culture ? We do know that there are differences, and we also know that discrimination exists.

[Moonlight Graham]

Why should my money go to fixing someone else's problems? I have my own problems.

I never said anything about money. There are a lot of things you can do that don't cost a cent, like volunteering your time, or clicking on the link in my signature everyday and letting site sponsors/advertisers pay the cash. I've clicked on those links in my sig everyday i had access to the internet for the last 4 years, and 2 seconds of my time everyday means so far i have given approximately 1400 cups of food to the hungry without paying a cent (along with the other buttons you can click on, like for child healthcare, education, women's breast exams etc.).

If you want to give money, i'd say good reasons are one that Michael pointed out. I don't know anything about your life or your problems, but for the average person who can read this their problems likely pale in comparison to most of those living in the 3rd world, especially sub-Saharan Africa. As i said, about 50% of the world lives on $2.50 a day or less. In 2001, 1.1 billion lived on $1 a day or less. That's an annual income of $365 or less, which is disgusting. But this is an improvement, as in 1981 1.5 billion lived on $1/day or less despite a growing population.

One of my fav things to say is instead of buying yourself a 42" plasma TV, why not buy yourself a 27" LCD TV and give the $1000 difference or whatever to a good charity. Is your life going to be that much better with a TV that's 15" bigger, compared to literally saving quite a few number lives of people in extreme poverty with that same cash?

By far the most important one. Which is why nations which have very valuable resources are still poverty stricken hells. Nigeria has lots of oil. Has it made their lives better? Zimbabwe used to be Africa's bread basket. Now they'd starve were it not for western charity.

Corrupt governments are no doubt one of the foremost reasons, but i would argue that colonialism/imperialism and its legacies is the #1 reason for third world underdevelopment (and also one of the contributing factors to corrupt governments and political instability in the first place).

Let me just ask you these questions to consider:

1) Of all the "underdeveloped" countries in the world, how many of them were former colonies of European powers (with the not-so-coincidental exception of colonies that were permanently settled by white euros with a now-white majority ie: U.S./Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand)?

2) What % of the world's "underdeveloped" countries consist of non-white majority populations vs white majority pops?

3) What % of the world's "fully developed" countries consist of white majority populations compared to non-white majority pops?

Edited May 11, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

1) Of all the "underdeveloped" countries in the world, how many of them were former colonies of European powers (with the not-so-coincidental exception of colonies that were permanently settled by white euros with a now-white majority ie: U.S./Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand)?

2) What % of the world's "underdeveloped" countries consist of non-white majority populations vs white majority pops?

3) What % of the world's "fully developed" countries consist of white majority populations compared to non-white majority pops?

So based on the answers to these questions you can conclude what? That white people are better at building fully developed nations?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So based on the answers to these questions you can conclude what? That white people are better at building fully developed nations?

More like white people are insanely lucky.

[Oleg Bach]

Oppression breeding depression is rampant these days..we are so used to being kept down and in our place that we think it is normal..all of humanity is being crushed...Oppressed white males are but a small part of the vast victims group..those who seek total control and dominance in the world don't give a damn what colour you are.

[WIP]

Why should my money go to fixing someone else's problems? I have my own problems.

It's already covered by Michael Hardner, except I would also add global poverty to the list because political boundaries don't stop the effects of mass migrations and environmental degradation from reaching our shores. The problems associated with a changing climate cannot be fixed without addressing population growth and clearing rainforests for agriculture.

No, they actually don't disagree with me. You simply only read the surface of such statistics. The fact is that people born in Canada, male or female, black or white, who put in the same efforts, and have the same skills and experience, get paid largely the same money. Now Blacks are less likely to finish high school - as a collective. And women are less likely to have the same amount of experience - as a collective. This is due to varients in culture between blacks and whites, between men and women, not to innate discrimination.

And who gets to evaluate how much effort men, women, blacks, whites put in, or whether they have the skills and experience to do the job? It strains credibility to deny that the old boy network doesn't exist.

It's also important to remember that correlation does not prove causation. It's why scientists demand that test results be replicable, and it works in here in social studies as well. For example, about blacks being less likely to finish high school...assuming that's true here in Canada, is that proof that they lack motivation, or are dumb (as implied), or is it that many blacks living in lower class neighborhoods will not have access to the best schools, along with limited access to higher education, and less economic incentives to finish high school. If you're unemployed or working in some menial service job, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not you completed high school, and it's going to be harder to show benefits of education...but you are probably against affirmative action programs.

By far the most important one. Which is why nations which have very valuable resources are still poverty stricken hells. Nigeria has lots of oil. Has it made their lives better? Zimbabwe used to be Africa's bread basket. Now they'd starve were it not for western charity.

In Nigeria, oil has made life better for some, but not for others. So, what else is new. Part of the problem being that Nigeria was not a nation, or had any national movement before colonialism. It is still a collection of hundreds of tribal groups; so if you throw a big pile of cash in the middle...such as proceeds from oil, what do you think will happen? But, can you think of any resource-rich country that is a healthy, stable democracy? For most oil-rich nations on Earth, oil is a curse; so why should Nigeria be any different?

No question about it that much of the problems in Nigeria, the rest of Africa and the Third World, have to do with the fact that colonial rule never really ended. The political structures of colonial government may have been replaced with locals, but the economic power in most of the developing world is under the control of large multinational corporations. Chevron and other oil companies pump the oil out of the ground in Nigeria, and receive most of the money.

[Oleg Bach]

The way things seem to work today..If you are good and civilized and not willing to step on others to earn a living you will be oppressed and persecuted. ONCE a company finds out that you are not willing to disrupt and or destroy others on mass..then you will not get the job...simple..that's the way the world works these days. JUST as a sexist male will persecute and oppress a female..that same male will destroy males also. FORGET about focusing on human rights for white males..focus on human rights for all humans, then we might get something done.

[Argus]

I never said anything about money. There are a lot of things you can do that don't cost a cent, like volunteering your time, or clicking on the link in my signature everyday and letting site sponsors/advertisers pay the cash.

It would be nice to think that for a very, very small sacrifice on our part we can make a big difference in the underdeveloped world. But I just don't buy it. We've been feeding billions upon tens of billions upon hundreds of billions in charity into the third world for a couple of generations now and it's poorer than it was in the fifties. Soft hearted charity, however well-meaning, is not helping.

I'd be more in favour of some hard-hearted policies which no one is likely to go for. For example, I would stop the process of immigration entirely. Once upon a time, most of the people who emigrated to the new world were the poor and downtrodden of the old. That is no longer the case. However much I might complain about the quality of many of the immigrants who come here, the fact remains that far, far too many of the best and brightest, of the most educated people in the third world, leave for the west every year. While some people whine about us needing to make it easier to recognize the qualifications of third world doctors I wonder if they ever pause to consider how much it hurts the third world when their doctors emmigrate here.

I would provide major funding for university education and technical schools, colleges, mechanical schools, the basics, to the best and brightest of the third world and make them stay there to use that new education and those new skills. I'm not talking computer training, but agricultural, engineering, medicine, minerals and mining, forestry and law. Hell, there aren't even enough people in africa who can repair basic farm or power generating equipment.

If I had my way with africa I'd rip out all the national boundaries and redraw them according to sane ethnic and tribal lines. In fact, I'd re-colonize most of the continent with the condition that lots of colleges and universities would go in, and that as people got educated they would slowly begin to take control over their affairs again.

All of that would be expensive as hell, but I wouldn't mind, because I think it might well work.

Charity doesn't work. It hasn't worked for decades. I see no prospect it will work in the coming decades.

Corrupt governments are no doubt one of the foremost reasons, but i would argue that colonialism/imperialism and its legacies is the #1 reason for third world underdevelopment (and also one of the contributing factors to corrupt governments and political instability in the first place).

Most of the poorest nations in the world are Muslim, and few of them were colonies of the west for very long at all.

1) Of all the "underdeveloped" countries in the world, how many of them were former colonies of European powers (with the not-so-coincidental exception of colonies that were permanently settled by white euros with a now-white majority ie: U.S./Canada/Austrailia/New Zealand)?

Why does that matter? Almost everyone was a colony of someone at one point. Ireland was a colony of the Brits. Korea was a colony of the Japanese. Portugal and most of Spain were an Arab colony. Africans were enslaved by Arabs long before Europeans started buying them.

Colonialism is overrated in terms of influences today. It's major influence was that it was abandoned too hurriedly, without preparing those colonies for independance. All too many of them were granted independance with very few educated residents left to manage things and on territories which sprawled over too many opposing ethnic groups and tribes.

[Oleg Bach]

BIG blue eyed well fed Anglo Germanics (white people) are like pale eyed wolves...maybe it is time to oppress white males..they had their turn at being privledged..and things revolve..we now seem to have an international revolution against what is left of the British Empire...good bye Anglos and say hello to Jose`....He is ambitious...Oh ....by the way there is this Korean guy in the hood who runs a buisness - he lends money to white anglo crack heads - so they can buy dope...Fallen Anglos on trust funds....go figure - there are immigrants in this nation who are slowly killing the whites off...or at least assisting them in slow suicide.

[Bonam]

But, can you think of any resource-rich country that is a healthy, stable democracy?

Yeah, we happen to be living in the world's foremost example of such a country, Canada.

[bloodyminded]

Uh, no one favours higher taxes for people who work more?

That's correct.

Then why do we have progressive taxation? Why do people with low incomes pay little or no tax while people with high incomes pay almost half of their income in tax?

As American Woman pointed out, low income doesn't clealry and always translate into working less; nor does high income mean one works more.

Only top-down, class-warrior elitists believe this is automatically so.

[Oleg Bach]

That's correct.

As American Woman pointed out, low income doesn't clealry and always translate into working less; nor does high income mean one works more.

Only top-down, class-warrior elitists believe this is automatically so.

When you see a young privledged white man walk down the street he expects you to walk in the gutter while they pass on the high ground. It is not that they are aware of this un-courtly behaviour, it is just that they are so unaware and have been programmed to accept the idea that they rule the world..they do not grant empathy to anyone--This culture is rather barbaric..and is leading to the down fall of the cruel and entitled elite. When I see the typical white person sit in a bisto eating a hundred dollar lunch in the middle of the day - drinking wine without a care in the world..I find it disturbing that they do not think of others as I wander off to the store to buy a can of beans to keep me going - I actually am a good and caring person who thinks of others..and because of that I have no money.

[Bonam]

When you see a young privledged white man walk down the street he expects you to walk in the gutter while they pass on the high ground.

I don't think this is the case at all. Most of the time when I see young people walking down the street they are the ones who step out of the way to make room for others, if needed. That's certainly what I do and I'm a "young white man".

When I see the typical white person sit in a bisto eating a hundred dollar lunch in the middle of the day - drinking wine without a care in the world..I find it disturbing that they do not think of others as I wander off to the store to buy a can of beans to keep me going

A typical white person eats hundred dollar lunches? Sorry but what planet are you from? I don't even have a clue where the heck I could go where I could spend $100 on lunch. However, if someone is enjoying an expensive meal in the middle of the day, why should they worry about you and your can of beans? They earned (or inherited) their wealth and have every right to enjoy it in whatever way they deem appropriate. Neither you nor anyone else is entitled to it.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, we happen to be living in the world's foremost example of such a country, Canada.

Not to mention Australia, Norway, Brazil and the USA...