What was your wife’s reaction to what she supposedly said?
Specifically, which companies told you that?
Make an ugly woman your wife is probably a safer bet. Plus it sounds better in a song (sung by some black dudes even!).
Well, I guess it’s fair that the right found their own version of dogwhistling accusations.
Be nice if that sentiment was more prevalent around here…
“A couple of non white males”. What a vague turn of phrase to use.
nm
No, they don’t.
Non-whites are far less likely to have a “family fortune” to provide seed money. Non-whites and women have a less extensive “old boys network” equivalent to provide contacts and opportunities. The Weinstein bullshit demonstrates that even women with talents and drive can be exploited and denied opportunity by bigots the devalue them - bigots who would never treat men the same way. I can’t say from personal experience, but it would not surprise me if minorities can likewise find themselves deceived and exploited.
I’ve been turned down for a LOT more than just 2 jobs for being female - “you’re not strong enough”, “you’re too emotional”, “you’re not feminine enough”, “you’re just going to drop out of the job and have kids” (that last as recently as 3 years ago - have I mentioned I’m in my mid-50’s and menopausal? Yeah, kids, right…:rolleyes: ) There was the asshat 10 years ago who said he MIGHT give me and interview… if I got a boob job first. Men who said they’d give me a job if I gave them a blowjob, first. Have YOU ever had an interviewer demand you suck his cock to get a job?
Boo-hoo-hoo - you got turned down for TWO jobs? Every woman and minority I’ve ever met has been crossed off the list for consideration for a LOT MORE than a measly two jobs.
I get it - what was done to you was wrong. Outside of a certain select jobs - wet-nurse and surrogate mother come to mind - gender SHOULD be irrelevant. But sorry, your two jobs don’t hold a candle to the dozens the non-white-male crowd can usually list that they didn’t get because they weren’t male or weren’t white or both.
That’s what a lot of white men don’t see and don’t get - that as bruised at they feel for their handful of instances of being on the short end of the stick for the rest of us it’s a constant and on-going phenomena. That hurt you felt? It’s routine for some other people, they get it on EVERY job hunt.
When you are as outraged that everyone else is having to put up with that shit as you at having endured it merely twice then you’ll get it.
Actually it makes your summary all the more suspect.
I think you were failing to understand what you were hearing TBH. I’d really love to see a transcript or recording so we could all have an interesting discussion about what she actually said, and how things like what she said are often misperceived.
People in general would not be able to tell you which names are making religious references and which not.
I was raised religious in Texas myself so, sure, I can spot a lot of biblical names etc. But the great, great majority of people will have no idea.
All those Johns, Michaels, Adams, Sarahs, Ruths, and Marys must be so angry that people judge them for their obviously Christian names. 
There are quite a few names that originated in the bible that people name their children all the time. Sometimes it may be because it is in the bible, but most of the time, they just like the name, and wouldn’t have even known its origins.
That practice was invented by white settlers!
Even if you dismiss the article, note the links at the end…let me know when police bias and collusion is common on the non-white side.
I dislike how threads such as this one invariably lead to everyone being forced to choose one side and deny any points being made by the other.
I entirely agree that blacks are more likely than whites to suffer from poverty, police brutality, and other problems. However I don’t see any point is using the term “white privilege”, as I have never seen any evidence that white privilege exists.
The roots of the problem lie in the fact that during 250 years of slavery and then another 100 years of segregation, most of America’s blacks were forcibly kept in poverty and socially cut off from the society around them, a society that was became the world’s most prosperous. By the 1960’s that had lead to a large number of blacks being forced into urban ghettos. Then official segregation was outlawed, but that in itself did not address the problems of crime, family breakdown, and police brutality that disproportionately affected blacks. 350 years of policy is not undone so easily. I’m sure that there are some people who fail to understand this, and think that “hey, the Civil Rights act was 55 years ago, what can blacks be complaining about now?”
However, the fact that poverty and other problems disproportionately affect blacks does not mean that “white privilege” is a useful term. Plenty of white people suffer from poverty and police brutality too. Your Location bar says Kentucky, so you surely know it. Kentucky has many of America’s poorest counties, inhabited almost exclusively by whites. For a white person growing up in such a county, a lecture about his or her “privilege” would surely sound untrue and insulting.
It would be much more useful to discuss the privileges of wealth instead, since there actually are a great many things that all wealthy people can do, but which no poor people can do.
Ah yes, the “We should avoid insulting people who aren’t going to vote for us anyway” argument.
I have a bit of a hard time with trying to avoid hurting the feelings of people who just love the whole “fuck your feelings” thing.
Bullshit. Michigan and Wisconsin should have been blue. Waiting for demographic shifts is not a viable strategy for the Democratic Party.
Not to mention that the median income in Santa Clara county is over $100 K, and it is heavily Democratic. Not nearly 100% white, but enough to make the claim unlikely.
I suspect the claim was hyperbole. She’s an artist, not a sociologist, right?
I agree that affirmative action should be more based on wealth than race. But one problem is that whites in these places, who definitely do not have privileges, have been taught that they should be superior, and would rather vote for policies that hurt others than those that help them.
There is also a definite bias to hire people who are like you - and that bias is not limited to whites.
There is also the problem that if you recruit at schools with a skewed population, you get employees skewed in the same way, even if you are totally fair in hiring from that school.
White privilege doesn’t necessarily come from people being evil, just being human.
Imagine how much worse it would be if those areas were inhabited by minorities - like say, poor areas on the South side of Chicago.
Except we can see exactly that - the recent campaign focused on those two areas. One candidate argued for training and education while the other argued for increasing historically consistent jobs. All we heard about the other area was threats to send in the Army to fix all the crime.
Privilege isn’t an “I WIN!” button. It’s a step or two closer to the finish line in a race. Throw in a couple more for having a functioning family, with both parents. And a half-dozen for a safe neighborhood and solid schools. Maybe even sneak a toe forward because there’s no drug abuse in the family. Outside of race, NONE of those things are determined by the color of your skin, but there are significant correlations, much of them caused by the segregation you mentioned. Yes, someone with incredible drive, determination, and talent can overcome that deficit. But a lot of people are going to look at how far back they’re starting and just say, “Fuck it.”
Privilege isn’t an accusation. It’s not to make those who have it feel guilty for the head start they received - it’s simply to help them acknowledge that extra boost they may have gotten, and to remind them their achievements don’t make them better than others who haven’t reached their level yet.