Realistically, after this whole little plotline, her career is basically over anyway, so she might as well go out doing something actually good for once.
On an unrelated note, there are talking audio ads on this site now, and it’s very annoying.
Those things that let you know something exists so that you’re not walking around wondering what those weird boxes people are holding up to their ears are.
I’m sure a black woman would also have sympathizers. Just not the same ones.
Gwen
Also not nearly as many, which is the bigger point here.
Yotomoe
I don’t think quantity is much of an issue as is outcome. It’s not about how many people are upset, it’s who’s in charge of dishing out punishment.
desolation0
Which also tends to favor the white boy.
Emily
AKA predominantly white dudes.
JasonAW3
Ok, I got one for you…
Anthony Weiner.
I don’t think anyone has any real sympathy for him at all!!!
(And if they DO, they’re some very sick monkeys!!!)
Lokitsu
Yes, even Anthony Weiner has folks that think he got railroaded out of office. We live in a world that has Holocaust deniers. You will always find someone who sympathizes with even the most unredeemable monsters.
Woobie
Like who?
Mollyscribbles
More to the point: Not as well-positioned.
zoelogical
it’s really not comparable. especially when women of color get attacked more often than white women do, and both get attacked more often than white men do. it’s like being a woman (and not being white) is an walking “punch me” sign
Lokitsu
That’s an amazingly blanketed statement. When you say attacked, do you mean raped, mugged, relationship abuse, all of the above or something else? And is this in campuses, in the USA or across the world? What really bugs me about your comment is not the (somewhat warranted) idea that white men have it easier than anyone else, its the implication that non-white women have it worse than EVERYONE else. This ignores hate crimes, child abuse, gay bashing, etc. And since “non-white” covers the majority of people on the planet and 52% of them are female, you’ve skewed the numbers so that your statement almost HAS to be true. If you want to bring up specific injustices, fine, lets talk. But, please don’t use the worn out “white men is ebil overlords and I’m a poor victim” argument. Its demeaning to others who have suffered.
thejeff
I’d assume USA. Other countries have different patterns of prejudice. And yeah, it’s pretty much accurate. I’d guess that’s for adults, with children being considered separately.
Nor, anywhere in there did they say anything about white men being evil. Just less likely to be victims. Which doesn’t mean can’t be victims, of course.
The “pity the poor white men” thing is also pretty worn out, though it still seems to work fairly well.
zoelogical
🙂 🙂 🙂 u know if you want to ask for my sources you don’t have to be rude about it
but given that my sources are all of human history, most statistics on attacks (be it verbal, physical, or otherwise) and ask any nonwhite woman on twitter, you’re going to have to be more specific about your ignorance so that i can answer your questions
or, you know, you could just google it
Lokitsu
I responded badly before so I’ll try to choose my words more carefully this time. I know women are more likely to be the victims of violence than men. I also know that there are cultures where women are treated far more brutally than they are in typical Western European culture. But percentage-wise, are women more likely to be victimized than homosexuals of either gender? Or children? I honestly don’t know and it shouldn’t matter because violence is violence; noone should suffer it. I just don’t want anyone’s pain to be considered less important than anyone else’s.
I’m sorry about the “ebil white men” comment. I was in a bad mood and acted like an a-hole.
zoelogical
yeah, you were pretty much being an a-hole.
the problem is that you are asking me to do your homework for you. if you are curious about the comparison of rates of violent attacks between women and gay people, then it is your responsibility to go look that up. it is not my job to be an encyclopedia of relevant facts for you.
my guess would be that gay men are more privileged than women (or possibly equivalent to white women?), and straight women more privileged than gay women, and gay women (potentially) more privileged than trans women in this regard, but that’s mostly my intuition speaking.
zoelogical
also like that reaally. does not. include intersectionality at all. i mean it’s not like people divide themselves into neat little subsets of gay vs. lesbian vs. trans vs. nonwhite, we contain multitudes
Li
lol no, my friend, the large majority of LGBTQIAPN+-bashing crime victims are people of color, and being a trans woman of color specifically is the most dangerous. That you don’t already know that is only because LGBTQIAPN+ organizations have a nasty habit of not breaking down their statistics by race when they publish them.
Also, that little ~logic~ trap you laid is cute and all, but I’m afraid the statistics we’re talking about account for “women are a very slight majority”, and people of color are not in any way the majority in the USA but still make up the majority of the victims of violent crime anyway. So sorry your gotcha turned out to be so flimsy.
He’s a person. There will always be people who will side with someone, no matter how heinous the crime was. White privilege is real but its not an absolute.
truk2
I like to say that “priviledge” as an accusation is kinda like BMI as a measure of health. Its a valid concept and great meaning when measuring the average across a population. But the moment you use it as a diagnostic on an individual, you failed either philosophy or logic or both.
I don’t mean to say that people don’t act out of priveledge. They do. But priveledge is a descriptor, not a diagnostic.
Except that it IS diagnostic. Taking privilege for granted, falling to see where you have privileges that other people do not, that directly leads to a lot of crappy behavior.
And while not every white person has an easier life than every person of color, that doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t apply to individuals.
Lokitsu
White privilege is a real phenomenon, but once you acknowledge it, you need to work on specific problems, not dwell on the unfairness of it all. Talk about why blacks and Latinos are more likely to be convicted than whites or how their sentences are usually longer. Figure out how to break the glass ceiling. But whining about unfairness in general is pointless.
White people complaining about others “whining about unfairness” is an excellent example of privilege.
“Why are you complaining to me about this? I’m not going to do anything about this! Go solve it yourself and leave me alone!”
Pat
The first step to solving any problem is to shut up.
GJT
“And while not every white person has an easier life than every person of color, that doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t apply to individuals.”
When you use it as “you’re a white person therefore you have privilege” yes, that’s exactly what it means. Privilege exists on the individual level, but it is not useful as a tool going from the general to the specific level. That is overgeneralizing and is the root of basically all forms of bigotry: “All X people are Y characteristic”
It’s one thing to see an individual who clearly does have privilege and comment on the reason, (IE. “He was treated better because he’s white” or “It’s because he’s rich that he got away with this thing.”) but the reverse situation is simply not useful. Assuming a white person WILL experience the privilege that comes across the AVERAGE or all white people is the same kind of bad logic as assuming that a black person will automatically behave like the average of all black people. Granted, the consequences of them are different, but it’s still bad logic.
Hey guess what. If you’re a person, then you have privilege.
White people aren’t the only ones who have it, but if you’re white in this country, that means don’t have to deal with systemic racism. You get to see people who look like you in the media, portrayed in a variety of ways as 3 dimensional people with inner lives.
Now, if you’re gay, a woman, transgender, an atheist, a Muslim (or anything other than Christian), if you’re disabled, neurodivergant, or mentally ill, if you’re elderly, overweight, or not conventionally attractive, if you’re poor, have a criminal record, or are an immigrant, all of those things affect privilege differently.
Having privilege isn’t about YOU. It’s about society. Our culture gives preferential treatment to wealthy, attractive, young, neurotypical white heterosexual cisgender male Christians who speak English without an accent.
If that describes you, then you have privilege because of this.
GJT
There’s a major difference between having general privilege and experiencing that privilege in a given situation. It is neither accurate nor helpful to anyone to assume that a member of a privileged class will automatically benefit from their privileged class status in a particular situation. Not all white people always benefit the same way from privilege. What I and some others are arguing is you cannot use privilege as a predictive tool on an individual level. “He’s white, so this specific thing will happen” is not a logical or helpful statement to make 99.99% of the time. You can use privilege to EXPLAIN, but not to PREDICT, else it by definition is becoming at best, dangerously close to racist/sexist/whatever other form of bigotry is relevant to the statement, and at worst, explicitly that.
He’s a white male, so these sort of things are in fact more likely to happen.
Society’s preference for white dudes makes it more likely to happen. As long as that is true, predicting results to be biased in his favor is completely reasonable.
And this “implying that white privilege benefits individual white people is the REAL racism” line of argument is ridiculous. Grow up.
If it’s fair to say it’s more likely, then people making predictions about it shouldn’t be a problem.
And racial profiling is a manifestation of our society favoring white people.
If I predict that a little old white lady is far less likely to be hassled by the TSA than a Muslim man with a beard and a turban, then YES, it’s based on the same logic employed by the TSA agents doing the profiling, because THAT’S WHY IT’S MORE LIKELY.
“American society gives White people preferential treatment” and “black people are more likely to commit crimes” are NOT comparable. The first one is actually true, and supported by data. The second is not.
GJT
As Foamy said there’s a distinction between something being “likely” and it being certain. And at know point did i imply, much less state, that the white privilege blaming took away from other forms of racism or was more real than them, but it IS racism. Assuming an individual will do something or get something because of their race is racism, by it’s very definition. Most racist lines of thought are based on statistics. Many minorities, at one point in time or another, were statistically more likely to match some of their stereotypes(not all though, some are just made up) but those stereotypes and assumptions are still racist because the individual is not the race and many of those statistics had underlying outside causes.
Statistical arguments that imply something is near certain are especially risky since something could have a .001% chance of happening in one race, and a .005% chance of happening in another and you could honestly say it was “five times as likely” but it’s still insignificant. (I intentionally used the exaggerated numbers there to make the point, I am NOT saying or implying that privilege is that rare or even close to it)
thejeff
Now that’s purely wrong. Racist notions of black people, for example, are not based on statistics. Not even on old statistics. They’re based on white folks lying to each other to justify slavery.
White privilege isn’t really based on statistics either. It’s based on living in a society where “white” is the norm, where everything else is disadvantaged. Doesn’t mean you’re going to live like a king, of course. But if you’re white, you benefit from it, all the time, mostly in little ways. Often without you being aware.
I’m sure I have.
foamy
Muslims’re more likely to smash planes into buildings than little old ladies though Fart Captor, or so people think. So you get dudes being hassled for the crime of doing math while Arabic. Hooray everything.
PS: Saying “but the statistics don’t support X” without further arguments against X implicitly means X would be okay if the statistics DID support it.
That’s not a great tack to take if you’re trying to say X is wrong.
@GJT:
“White privilege blaming”, even when that’s what’s actually what’s happening (fyi, it isn’t here), is in no way comparable to actual racism.
Giving dudes like Ryan a benefit of a doubt they would not give to minorities is a thing our society does. THAT is racism.
Making predictions that our flawed society will likely act in a typically flawed manner is not racism.
You’re basically saying “well I’m not denying that privilege is real or even uncommon, but people basing predictions on that real, common occurrence is wrong somehow”
@foamy:
You were likening “pointing out the likelihood that white male privilege is part of why Ryan has supporters” to racism. Yes, even if valid statistical data showed that any given Muslim was likely to be a terrorist, it would still be wrong to treat all of them like terrorists.
This is not comparable to people predicting that the way our society favors white males has benefited a particular white male.
The first is wrong, and acting on that assumption would have harmful consequences. The second is both true, and people acting on it would not result in harm, but awareness.
GJT
““White privilege blaming”, even when that’s what’s actually what’s happening (fyi, it isn’t here), is in no way comparable to actual racism.”
What is happening with Ryan isn’t the situation I was responding to. Saying Ryan’s supporters are because he is a white man is explanatory, not predictive. I was responding to discussion of the situation, not the situation itself. What i mean by white privilege blaming is NOT accusing an individual of white privilege after the fact like what is happening with Ryan, it is the viewpoint that “You are part of a privilege group so you are the problem” and all the sub-problems that branch off from it.
“Giving dudes like Ryan a benefit of a doubt they would not give to minorities is a thing our society does. THAT is racism.”
100% agreed.
“Making predictions that our flawed society will likely act in a typically flawed manner is not racism.”
Also agreed. What IS racist(or sexist, or whatever is relevant) is the assumption that all members of a privilege group will receive that privilege in a given situation and therefore those individuals are somehow worse or in the wrong because their group is usually treated better by society, even in situations where they themselves DON’T end up benefiting from the privilege in question.
“You’re basically saying “well I’m not denying that privilege is real or even uncommon, but people basing predictions on that real, common occurrence is wrong somehow””
Ok, i’ll give you this one to a point. I did give that impression. I’ll revise/clarify. Predictions are the problem. Treating those predictions like a certainty, or treating the individuals like they are responsible for everything society does regarding them is the problem.
And to give an overarcing statement in case I missed something: I am in NO WAY defending Ryan or saying he does not have white privilege, or male privilege, or any other particular privileges he may possess. All i was trying to address was the general topic of not overcompensating and trying to help unprivileged groups by targeting individuals of the privileged group for hate/bashing, rather than actually trying to help the underprivileged. Ryan(or whatever his real name is), and those like him, do not deserve protection, but it’s not BECAUSE he has white/male privilege, it’s because of what he DID that that white/male privilege is protecting him from. White privilege is a problem with society(and the individuals that support it), not a problem with the individuals that RECEIVE it.
I absolutely agree that privilege a problem with society and not the people receiving it. But I don’t see anyone here who has said otherwise, so I don’t understand who you were arguing against. I don’t see anyone saying that Ryan is bad because of white male privilege, only people saying white male privilege is bad because protects assholes like Ryan from what they deserve.
The people who are choosing to side with Ryan based on nothing – those members of society actively perpetuating injustices like this – they ARE a problem. They are responsible for the harm caused by the disparities they help create and maintain.
Predicting a crappy thing which happens all too often has happened again here is not harming anyone. Even people being 100% sure of those predictions.
thejeff
“Saying Ryan’s supporters are because he is a white man is explanatory, not predictive.” Predicting that Ryan would have supporters before we learned about them would also not have been racist. As Felgraf says below, the Red Pillers would have jumped on board pretty much regardless.
“Also agreed. What IS racist(or sexist, or whatever is relevant) is the assumption that all members of a privilege group will receive that privilege in a given situation and therefore those individuals are somehow worse or in the wrong because their group is usually treated better by society, even in situations where they themselves DON’T end up benefiting from the privilege in question.” Here’s the big break in understanding. Particularly the second part: Having privilege doesn’t make you worse or put you in the wrong. It’s just a thing. It’s part of the society we live in. If you’ve got a particular kind of privilege, there really isn’t anything you can do about it. You can’t demand that everyone treat you as if you didn’t.
GJT
“I absolutely agree that privilege a problem with society and not the people receiving it. But I don’t see anyone here who has said otherwise, so I don’t understand who you were arguing against. I don’t see anyone saying that Ryan is bad because of white male privilege, only people saying white male privilege is bad because protects assholes like Ryan from what they deserve.”
Ok. Agreed.
“The people who are choosing to side with Ryan based on nothing – those members of society actively perpetuating injustices like this – they ARE a problem. They are responsible for the harm caused by the disparities they help create and maintain.”
Also agreed. To clarify that is what i meant by “and the individuals who support it”.
“Predicting a crappy thing which happens all too often has happened again here is not harming anyone. Even people being 100% sure of those predictions.”
I do agree that I said the wrong thing before, the predictions aren’t a problem, it’s just the way a subset of people use those predictions that is. I just noticed i made a typo in my last post, it should say “Predictions aren’t the problem” not “are”, and before that, I was just arguing wrongly on that particular point.
“Predicting that Ryan would have supporters before we learned about them would also not have been racist. As Felgraf says below, the Red Pillers would have jumped on board pretty much regardless.”
I agree, I believe I have already clarified that point.
“Here’s the big break in understanding. Particularly the second part: Having privilege doesn’t make you worse or put you in the wrong. It’s just a thing. It’s part of the society we live in. If you’ve got a particular kind of privilege, there really isn’t anything you can do about it. You can’t demand that everyone treat you as if you didn’t.”
Also agreed, but I also wanted to get across that privilege is not universal within a privileged group. That is basically the crux of my argument here. It is not racist to guess that someone will probably benefit from white privilege. It’s not racist to be confident in it. It becomes racist when you use the assumption that they WILL benefit because their group benefits more often, to make decisions regarding how to treat them. This is already bad even if the individual IS actually benefiting from their privilege in the situation, but it’s even worse when it’s just assumed they must be benefiting. And people do definitely do both of those things. Even arguing that “regular” (meaning more commonly recognized forms of) racism are BIGGER problems doesn’t make it not a problem when people do this. Examples include “You’re privileged so you don’t get to have opinions on this”, “You’re privileged you aren’t allowed to complain about mistreatment”, and “You’re privileged you must abuse it all the time”. I originally felt like this tone is what was being lead up to, but now I think I misunderstood the tone of the conversation. So while i still stand by my arguments(except the one part I’ve already ceded) I admit they may not actually be relevant to this conversation. So I’ll probably just move on, just wanted to explain myself first.
He is a white man accused of attempting to rape a woman.
Oh hell yes he has sympathizers. Like, the entire MRA/Red Pill crowd, instantly, and with no question, for starters.
But he’s such a prooooomising young man with suuuuuuch good grades and suuuuch a great start in politics! How can we possibly want to ruin this wonderful boy’s life over one little thing?!
…okay, feeling ill from typing that, but that’s not far off from the rhetoric that has been used in reality to justify light sentences for rapists and other sex offenders in reality.
While it’s colored a little by Willis’ writing, some people are definitely gonna try and defend the guy who was glassed when there’s no tangible evidence he did anything wrong.
We know he’s a dirtbag.
But everyone else?
It’s a he said/she said story.
Until more people join the conversation.
this. people who can’t magically watch and go back in time to see what happened in this comic aka the characters and misc people you never see might not trust it right away.
I’d like to say that sort of thing is rare in real life, but I know a guy who’s first comment on the Cosby rape charges was along the lines of “it’s pretty easy for a woman to make that sort of thing up”.
Thanks to everyone who matters there no case or evidence, besides the blood on Joyce’s shirt which could be reversed into a an assault charge against her. Seriously, they have nothing, their words only as good as his and it’s been at least a month or so since the attack given the known timeline so far. I’m not defending the guy, I’m just pointing out argument that could be made against them. they should have gone to the hospital and gotten the drugging on record.
Please don’t repeat all the arguments that people use when dismissing survivors here.
TheAnonymousGuy
it’s not dismissing survivors, it’s just how the justice system in America works.
Lin
Do you want to know how the justice system in America works? Of the sexual assaults that are reported, almost none are investigated. Of the ones that are investigated, almost none are charged. Of the ones that are charged, almost none are prosecuted. Of the ones that are prosecuted, almost no rapists are convicted.
Add into the fact that at almost every step of the process, Joyce is likely to be asked why she was at a party’s where there was alcohol, what she was wearing, is it possible she led him on, etc etc etc.
There is not justice to be found for survivors n the American legal justice system. Don’t tell survivors what we should have done.
TheAnonymousGuy
literally none of your first statement is true, rape is so despised that people have actually been sent to prison on shorty evidence and fake stories fro false claims (they may be few in number but they still happen). Secondly, all three of the questions that would be asked of Joyce are likely to be dismissed for there lack of reasonability. Finally we do have justice for victims but, we also have a system that believes in Facts, evidence and Truth not FEELINGS or believe because I say so. If we lived under a justice system where an accusation equaled a jail sentence then just about everyone would be in prison for the worst of shit. We may not have a perfect system but atleast it’s better then nothing
And do you remember Brock Turner? He was convicted and only did 3 months in jail. His case may not have been typical, but it’s far from uncommon.
That isn’t justice.
I strongly doubt anyone here is saying “innocent until proven guilty” is a bad policy. It’s not. But it also shouldn’t mean that accusations get dismissed, aren’t investigated, or get the victim grilled as if they committed a crime.
If in the vast majority of cases where rapists got little or no punishment, the reason was because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, it would be a dramatic improvement over the current situation
Falcon
Both of you are actually right. Rape is certainly underreported because a lot of women don’t want to admit they were raped due to various factors and people often don’t believe them. The traditional evidentiary standards courts use also mean that reliable evidence of rape is extremely hard to come by.
This is why courts today use rules of evidence that are extremely relaxed for sexual assault and rape cases. It allows for the conviction of defendants on flimsier evidence, because flimsy evidence is all rape cases tend to get and it’s such a heinous and underreported crime that Congress was willing to take greater risks of convicting innocent people in order to crack down on rapists.
hof1991
Not just how it works, but how its designed. Feature not bug.
Zatar
The Justice System of America regularly dismisses survivors.
TheAnonymousGuy
Justice is blind means it’s blind to; Race, gender, religion, age, creed, statues but, not unto it’s self. The guilty should be punished but, not until you know their guilty. That’s why our moto is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Justice is blind. The Justice System is not, because it’s made up of people. Who are subject to prejudice, bias, hate, incompetence, and all kinds of other petty bullshit.
By “dismissing survivors”, Zatar means that when one tries to report what happened, far too often they are dismissed by the police, who say they must have wanted it. They may get dismissed by prosecutors, who don’t want to take up the case because they think it “wasn’t really rape”. They may get dismissed by the courts who will try drag them through the mud for voluntarily having had sex at some point in their lives, or for having done drugs or having any criminal record. The defense will almost certainly do so.
Then finally, if they get a conviction, the judge may dismiss them by giving their attacker probation instead of jail, because they “don’t want to ruin the young man’s promising future”
…and Joyce’s parents would almost certainly have pulled her out of school, while there would still be no guarantee Ryan would go to jail.
TheAnonymousGuy
and unless there’s been a change in medical law that I’m not aware of the doctors can’t tell her parents anything unless she’s allowed it, if she were incapable of making any decisions or was unconscious that’s a different story. (If there are any other exceptions I’m not aware of them)
I am going to guess that he has been going around with the tale of the minister’s son who got assaulted by a black woman at a party so if the truth ever pokes its head people will believe that its disinformation to cover up the assault.
The only “sympathizers” who “matter” in this, though, are either voters in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District—more specifically, *Republican or Republican-leaning voters,* or donors. If more of them sympathize with the minister’s son who has been accused of sexual assault, and “was assaulted by a black woman at a party,” as Pylgrim said—-if more of the voters sympathize with him than sympathize with the recently-outed lesbian Congresswoman, then it’s game over for Robin. And that’s among *Republicans,* remember.
My money’s on Ryan, in this case. Some voters are going to refuse to vote for Robin because she’s a Republican; of the remaining voters, some will refuse to vote for a lesbian, and some will probably refuse to vote for her simply because Ryan *was* an intern for her. She’s not going to be left with many voters to support her, at the end.
Exactly. Barring some serious scandal on Jake’s side, her coming out as a lesbian and going after Ryan, isn’t going to pick up enough Democratic (or leaning) voters to make up for those she loses.
404 thoughts on “Unexamined”
Ana Chronistic
“FIRE EVERYONE LET GOD* SORT ‘EM OUT”
*Willis has a crowdsourced wiki, tho, so this is actually not super necessary for him to do
Durandal_1707
Realistically, after this whole little plotline, her career is basically over anyway, so she might as well go out doing something actually good for once.
On an unrelated note, there are talking audio ads on this site now, and it’s very annoying.
Doctor_Who
I swear half the reason I give to Patreons is so the little Kronk-in-a-white-dress (“Robe!”) on my shoulder will shut up about my adblocker usage.
Deanatay
“We’ve been over this before. It’s a harp, and you know it!”
“Yeah, that’s a harp. And THAT’s a dress!”
“GOWN!”
foamy
No, Doctor_Who had it right: Angel Kronk’s line is “Robe!”
dn3s
what are ads?
Jack Faire
Those things that let you know something exists so that you’re not walking around wondering what those weird boxes people are holding up to their ears are.
zoelogical
i mean it’s only over if she gives up
or if people stop paying attention to her
Mr. Mendo
Atta-girl, Robin! ^_^
Kris
What sympathizers?! Everyone who matters hates him!
Schpoonman
He’s a white man. He will never not have sympathizers.
Yotomoe
I’m sure a black woman would also have sympathizers. Just not the same ones.
Gwen
Also not nearly as many, which is the bigger point here.
Yotomoe
I don’t think quantity is much of an issue as is outcome. It’s not about how many people are upset, it’s who’s in charge of dishing out punishment.
desolation0
Which also tends to favor the white boy.
Emily
AKA predominantly white dudes.
JasonAW3
Ok, I got one for you…
Anthony Weiner.
I don’t think anyone has any real sympathy for him at all!!!
(And if they DO, they’re some very sick monkeys!!!)
Lokitsu
Yes, even Anthony Weiner has folks that think he got railroaded out of office. We live in a world that has Holocaust deniers. You will always find someone who sympathizes with even the most unredeemable monsters.
Woobie
Like who?
Mollyscribbles
More to the point: Not as well-positioned.
zoelogical
it’s really not comparable. especially when women of color get attacked more often than white women do, and both get attacked more often than white men do. it’s like being a woman (and not being white) is an walking “punch me” sign
Lokitsu
That’s an amazingly blanketed statement. When you say attacked, do you mean raped, mugged, relationship abuse, all of the above or something else? And is this in campuses, in the USA or across the world? What really bugs me about your comment is not the (somewhat warranted) idea that white men have it easier than anyone else, its the implication that non-white women have it worse than EVERYONE else. This ignores hate crimes, child abuse, gay bashing, etc. And since “non-white” covers the majority of people on the planet and 52% of them are female, you’ve skewed the numbers so that your statement almost HAS to be true. If you want to bring up specific injustices, fine, lets talk. But, please don’t use the worn out “white men is ebil overlords and I’m a poor victim” argument. Its demeaning to others who have suffered.
thejeff
I’d assume USA. Other countries have different patterns of prejudice. And yeah, it’s pretty much accurate. I’d guess that’s for adults, with children being considered separately.
Nor, anywhere in there did they say anything about white men being evil. Just less likely to be victims. Which doesn’t mean can’t be victims, of course.
The “pity the poor white men” thing is also pretty worn out, though it still seems to work fairly well.
zoelogical
🙂 🙂 🙂 u know if you want to ask for my sources you don’t have to be rude about it
but given that my sources are all of human history, most statistics on attacks (be it verbal, physical, or otherwise) and ask any nonwhite woman on twitter, you’re going to have to be more specific about your ignorance so that i can answer your questions
or, you know, you could just google it
Lokitsu
I responded badly before so I’ll try to choose my words more carefully this time. I know women are more likely to be the victims of violence than men. I also know that there are cultures where women are treated far more brutally than they are in typical Western European culture. But percentage-wise, are women more likely to be victimized than homosexuals of either gender? Or children? I honestly don’t know and it shouldn’t matter because violence is violence; noone should suffer it. I just don’t want anyone’s pain to be considered less important than anyone else’s.
I’m sorry about the “ebil white men” comment. I was in a bad mood and acted like an a-hole.
zoelogical
yeah, you were pretty much being an a-hole.
the problem is that you are asking me to do your homework for you. if you are curious about the comparison of rates of violent attacks between women and gay people, then it is your responsibility to go look that up. it is not my job to be an encyclopedia of relevant facts for you.
my guess would be that gay men are more privileged than women (or possibly equivalent to white women?), and straight women more privileged than gay women, and gay women (potentially) more privileged than trans women in this regard, but that’s mostly my intuition speaking.
zoelogical
also like that reaally. does not. include intersectionality at all. i mean it’s not like people divide themselves into neat little subsets of gay vs. lesbian vs. trans vs. nonwhite, we contain multitudes
Li
lol no, my friend, the large majority of LGBTQIAPN+-bashing crime victims are people of color, and being a trans woman of color specifically is the most dangerous. That you don’t already know that is only because LGBTQIAPN+ organizations have a nasty habit of not breaking down their statistics by race when they publish them.
Also, that little ~logic~ trap you laid is cute and all, but I’m afraid the statistics we’re talking about account for “women are a very slight majority”, and people of color are not in any way the majority in the USA but still make up the majority of the victims of violent crime anyway. So sorry your gotcha turned out to be so flimsy.
Like zoelogical said, use google.
Lokitsu
He’s a person. There will always be people who will side with someone, no matter how heinous the crime was. White privilege is real but its not an absolute.
truk2
I like to say that “priviledge” as an accusation is kinda like BMI as a measure of health. Its a valid concept and great meaning when measuring the average across a population. But the moment you use it as a diagnostic on an individual, you failed either philosophy or logic or both.
I don’t mean to say that people don’t act out of priveledge. They do. But priveledge is a descriptor, not a diagnostic.
Fart Captor
Except that it IS diagnostic. Taking privilege for granted, falling to see where you have privileges that other people do not, that directly leads to a lot of crappy behavior.
And while not every white person has an easier life than every person of color, that doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t apply to individuals.
Lokitsu
White privilege is a real phenomenon, but once you acknowledge it, you need to work on specific problems, not dwell on the unfairness of it all. Talk about why blacks and Latinos are more likely to be convicted than whites or how their sentences are usually longer. Figure out how to break the glass ceiling. But whining about unfairness in general is pointless.
Fart Captor
White people complaining about others “whining about unfairness” is an excellent example of privilege.
“Why are you complaining to me about this? I’m not going to do anything about this! Go solve it yourself and leave me alone!”
Pat
The first step to solving any problem is to shut up.
GJT
“And while not every white person has an easier life than every person of color, that doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t apply to individuals.”
When you use it as “you’re a white person therefore you have privilege” yes, that’s exactly what it means. Privilege exists on the individual level, but it is not useful as a tool going from the general to the specific level. That is overgeneralizing and is the root of basically all forms of bigotry: “All X people are Y characteristic”
It’s one thing to see an individual who clearly does have privilege and comment on the reason, (IE. “He was treated better because he’s white” or “It’s because he’s rich that he got away with this thing.”) but the reverse situation is simply not useful. Assuming a white person WILL experience the privilege that comes across the AVERAGE or all white people is the same kind of bad logic as assuming that a black person will automatically behave like the average of all black people. Granted, the consequences of them are different, but it’s still bad logic.
Fart Captor
Hey guess what. If you’re a person, then you have privilege.
White people aren’t the only ones who have it, but if you’re white in this country, that means don’t have to deal with systemic racism. You get to see people who look like you in the media, portrayed in a variety of ways as 3 dimensional people with inner lives.
Now, if you’re gay, a woman, transgender, an atheist, a Muslim (or anything other than Christian), if you’re disabled, neurodivergant, or mentally ill, if you’re elderly, overweight, or not conventionally attractive, if you’re poor, have a criminal record, or are an immigrant, all of those things affect privilege differently.
Having privilege isn’t about YOU. It’s about society. Our culture gives preferential treatment to wealthy, attractive, young, neurotypical white heterosexual cisgender male Christians who speak English without an accent.
If that describes you, then you have privilege because of this.
GJT
There’s a major difference between having general privilege and experiencing that privilege in a given situation. It is neither accurate nor helpful to anyone to assume that a member of a privileged class will automatically benefit from their privileged class status in a particular situation. Not all white people always benefit the same way from privilege. What I and some others are arguing is you cannot use privilege as a predictive tool on an individual level. “He’s white, so this specific thing will happen” is not a logical or helpful statement to make 99.99% of the time. You can use privilege to EXPLAIN, but not to PREDICT, else it by definition is becoming at best, dangerously close to racist/sexist/whatever other form of bigotry is relevant to the statement, and at worst, explicitly that.
Fart Captor
He’s a white male, so these sort of things are in fact more likely to happen.
Society’s preference for white dudes makes it more likely to happen. As long as that is true, predicting results to be biased in his favor is completely reasonable.
And this “implying that white privilege benefits individual white people is the REAL racism” line of argument is ridiculous. Grow up.
Fart Captor
“This guy’s using loaded dice that are more likely to roll a 6, I’ll bet he’s going to win a lot!”
“OMG that’s practically racist”
foamy
It’s important to draw distinctions between “more likely” and “will”.
Also of note: That’s the precise form of thinking behind racial profiling in policing.
Fart Captor
If it’s fair to say it’s more likely, then people making predictions about it shouldn’t be a problem.
And racial profiling is a manifestation of our society favoring white people.
If I predict that a little old white lady is far less likely to be hassled by the TSA than a Muslim man with a beard and a turban, then YES, it’s based on the same logic employed by the TSA agents doing the profiling, because THAT’S WHY IT’S MORE LIKELY.
“American society gives White people preferential treatment” and “black people are more likely to commit crimes” are NOT comparable. The first one is actually true, and supported by data. The second is not.
GJT
As Foamy said there’s a distinction between something being “likely” and it being certain. And at know point did i imply, much less state, that the white privilege blaming took away from other forms of racism or was more real than them, but it IS racism. Assuming an individual will do something or get something because of their race is racism, by it’s very definition. Most racist lines of thought are based on statistics. Many minorities, at one point in time or another, were statistically more likely to match some of their stereotypes(not all though, some are just made up) but those stereotypes and assumptions are still racist because the individual is not the race and many of those statistics had underlying outside causes.
Statistical arguments that imply something is near certain are especially risky since something could have a .001% chance of happening in one race, and a .005% chance of happening in another and you could honestly say it was “five times as likely” but it’s still insignificant. (I intentionally used the exaggerated numbers there to make the point, I am NOT saying or implying that privilege is that rare or even close to it)
thejeff
Now that’s purely wrong. Racist notions of black people, for example, are not based on statistics. Not even on old statistics. They’re based on white folks lying to each other to justify slavery.
White privilege isn’t really based on statistics either. It’s based on living in a society where “white” is the norm, where everything else is disadvantaged. Doesn’t mean you’re going to live like a king, of course. But if you’re white, you benefit from it, all the time, mostly in little ways. Often without you being aware.
I’m sure I have.
foamy
Muslims’re more likely to smash planes into buildings than little old ladies though Fart Captor, or so people think. So you get dudes being hassled for the crime of doing math while Arabic. Hooray everything.
PS: Saying “but the statistics don’t support X” without further arguments against X implicitly means X would be okay if the statistics DID support it.
That’s not a great tack to take if you’re trying to say X is wrong.
Fart Captor
@GJT:
“White privilege blaming”, even when that’s what’s actually what’s happening (fyi, it isn’t here), is in no way comparable to actual racism.
Giving dudes like Ryan a benefit of a doubt they would not give to minorities is a thing our society does. THAT is racism.
Making predictions that our flawed society will likely act in a typically flawed manner is not racism.
You’re basically saying “well I’m not denying that privilege is real or even uncommon, but people basing predictions on that real, common occurrence is wrong somehow”
@foamy:
You were likening “pointing out the likelihood that white male privilege is part of why Ryan has supporters” to racism. Yes, even if valid statistical data showed that any given Muslim was likely to be a terrorist, it would still be wrong to treat all of them like terrorists.
This is not comparable to people predicting that the way our society favors white males has benefited a particular white male.
The first is wrong, and acting on that assumption would have harmful consequences. The second is both true, and people acting on it would not result in harm, but awareness.
GJT
““White privilege blaming”, even when that’s what’s actually what’s happening (fyi, it isn’t here), is in no way comparable to actual racism.”
What is happening with Ryan isn’t the situation I was responding to. Saying Ryan’s supporters are because he is a white man is explanatory, not predictive. I was responding to discussion of the situation, not the situation itself. What i mean by white privilege blaming is NOT accusing an individual of white privilege after the fact like what is happening with Ryan, it is the viewpoint that “You are part of a privilege group so you are the problem” and all the sub-problems that branch off from it.
“Giving dudes like Ryan a benefit of a doubt they would not give to minorities is a thing our society does. THAT is racism.”
100% agreed.
“Making predictions that our flawed society will likely act in a typically flawed manner is not racism.”
Also agreed. What IS racist(or sexist, or whatever is relevant) is the assumption that all members of a privilege group will receive that privilege in a given situation and therefore those individuals are somehow worse or in the wrong because their group is usually treated better by society, even in situations where they themselves DON’T end up benefiting from the privilege in question.
“You’re basically saying “well I’m not denying that privilege is real or even uncommon, but people basing predictions on that real, common occurrence is wrong somehow””
Ok, i’ll give you this one to a point. I did give that impression. I’ll revise/clarify. Predictions are the problem. Treating those predictions like a certainty, or treating the individuals like they are responsible for everything society does regarding them is the problem.
And to give an overarcing statement in case I missed something: I am in NO WAY defending Ryan or saying he does not have white privilege, or male privilege, or any other particular privileges he may possess. All i was trying to address was the general topic of not overcompensating and trying to help unprivileged groups by targeting individuals of the privileged group for hate/bashing, rather than actually trying to help the underprivileged. Ryan(or whatever his real name is), and those like him, do not deserve protection, but it’s not BECAUSE he has white/male privilege, it’s because of what he DID that that white/male privilege is protecting him from. White privilege is a problem with society(and the individuals that support it), not a problem with the individuals that RECEIVE it.
Fart Captor
I absolutely agree that privilege a problem with society and not the people receiving it. But I don’t see anyone here who has said otherwise, so I don’t understand who you were arguing against. I don’t see anyone saying that Ryan is bad because of white male privilege, only people saying white male privilege is bad because protects assholes like Ryan from what they deserve.
The people who are choosing to side with Ryan based on nothing – those members of society actively perpetuating injustices like this – they ARE a problem. They are responsible for the harm caused by the disparities they help create and maintain.
Predicting a crappy thing which happens all too often has happened again here is not harming anyone. Even people being 100% sure of those predictions.
thejeff
“Saying Ryan’s supporters are because he is a white man is explanatory, not predictive.” Predicting that Ryan would have supporters before we learned about them would also not have been racist. As Felgraf says below, the Red Pillers would have jumped on board pretty much regardless.
“Also agreed. What IS racist(or sexist, or whatever is relevant) is the assumption that all members of a privilege group will receive that privilege in a given situation and therefore those individuals are somehow worse or in the wrong because their group is usually treated better by society, even in situations where they themselves DON’T end up benefiting from the privilege in question.” Here’s the big break in understanding. Particularly the second part: Having privilege doesn’t make you worse or put you in the wrong. It’s just a thing. It’s part of the society we live in. If you’ve got a particular kind of privilege, there really isn’t anything you can do about it. You can’t demand that everyone treat you as if you didn’t.
GJT
“I absolutely agree that privilege a problem with society and not the people receiving it. But I don’t see anyone here who has said otherwise, so I don’t understand who you were arguing against. I don’t see anyone saying that Ryan is bad because of white male privilege, only people saying white male privilege is bad because protects assholes like Ryan from what they deserve.”
Ok. Agreed.
“The people who are choosing to side with Ryan based on nothing – those members of society actively perpetuating injustices like this – they ARE a problem. They are responsible for the harm caused by the disparities they help create and maintain.”
Also agreed. To clarify that is what i meant by “and the individuals who support it”.
“Predicting a crappy thing which happens all too often has happened again here is not harming anyone. Even people being 100% sure of those predictions.”
I do agree that I said the wrong thing before, the predictions aren’t a problem, it’s just the way a subset of people use those predictions that is. I just noticed i made a typo in my last post, it should say “Predictions aren’t the problem” not “are”, and before that, I was just arguing wrongly on that particular point.
“Predicting that Ryan would have supporters before we learned about them would also not have been racist. As Felgraf says below, the Red Pillers would have jumped on board pretty much regardless.”
I agree, I believe I have already clarified that point.
“Here’s the big break in understanding. Particularly the second part: Having privilege doesn’t make you worse or put you in the wrong. It’s just a thing. It’s part of the society we live in. If you’ve got a particular kind of privilege, there really isn’t anything you can do about it. You can’t demand that everyone treat you as if you didn’t.”
Also agreed, but I also wanted to get across that privilege is not universal within a privileged group. That is basically the crux of my argument here. It is not racist to guess that someone will probably benefit from white privilege. It’s not racist to be confident in it. It becomes racist when you use the assumption that they WILL benefit because their group benefits more often, to make decisions regarding how to treat them. This is already bad even if the individual IS actually benefiting from their privilege in the situation, but it’s even worse when it’s just assumed they must be benefiting. And people do definitely do both of those things. Even arguing that “regular” (meaning more commonly recognized forms of) racism are BIGGER problems doesn’t make it not a problem when people do this. Examples include “You’re privileged so you don’t get to have opinions on this”, “You’re privileged you aren’t allowed to complain about mistreatment”, and “You’re privileged you must abuse it all the time”. I originally felt like this tone is what was being lead up to, but now I think I misunderstood the tone of the conversation. So while i still stand by my arguments(except the one part I’ve already ceded) I admit they may not actually be relevant to this conversation. So I’ll probably just move on, just wanted to explain myself first.
Felgraf
He is a white man accused of attempting to rape a woman.
Oh hell yes he has sympathizers. Like, the entire MRA/Red Pill crowd, instantly, and with no question, for starters.
/Because they are ASSHOLES.
Foxhack
There are a lot of stupid people. Lots.
Amy
But he’s such a prooooomising young man with suuuuuuch good grades and suuuuch a great start in politics! How can we possibly want to ruin this wonderful boy’s life over one little thing?!
…okay, feeling ill from typing that, but that’s not far off from the rhetoric that has been used in reality to justify light sentences for rapists and other sex offenders in reality.
C.T Phipps
That’s not so much far off as what was literally said about a certain douchebag monster.
Mr. Random
http://www.dumbingofage.com/2017/comic/book-7/03-the-thing-i-was-before/pixely/
While it’s colored a little by Willis’ writing, some people are definitely gonna try and defend the guy who was glassed when there’s no tangible evidence he did anything wrong.
We know he’s a dirtbag.
But everyone else?
It’s a he said/she said story.
Until more people join the conversation.
miados
this. people who can’t magically watch and go back in time to see what happened in this comic aka the characters and misc people you never see might not trust it right away.
TPman
I’d like to say that sort of thing is rare in real life, but I know a guy who’s first comment on the Cosby rape charges was along the lines of “it’s pretty easy for a woman to make that sort of thing up”.
TheAnonymousGuy
Thanks to everyone who matters there no case or evidence, besides the blood on Joyce’s shirt which could be reversed into a an assault charge against her. Seriously, they have nothing, their words only as good as his and it’s been at least a month or so since the attack given the known timeline so far. I’m not defending the guy, I’m just pointing out argument that could be made against them. they should have gone to the hospital and gotten the drugging on record.
Zatar
Please don’t repeat all the arguments that people use when dismissing survivors here.
TheAnonymousGuy
it’s not dismissing survivors, it’s just how the justice system in America works.
Lin
Do you want to know how the justice system in America works? Of the sexual assaults that are reported, almost none are investigated. Of the ones that are investigated, almost none are charged. Of the ones that are charged, almost none are prosecuted. Of the ones that are prosecuted, almost no rapists are convicted.
Add into the fact that at almost every step of the process, Joyce is likely to be asked why she was at a party’s where there was alcohol, what she was wearing, is it possible she led him on, etc etc etc.
There is not justice to be found for survivors n the American legal justice system. Don’t tell survivors what we should have done.
TheAnonymousGuy
literally none of your first statement is true, rape is so despised that people have actually been sent to prison on shorty evidence and fake stories fro false claims (they may be few in number but they still happen). Secondly, all three of the questions that would be asked of Joyce are likely to be dismissed for there lack of reasonability. Finally we do have justice for victims but, we also have a system that believes in Facts, evidence and Truth not FEELINGS or believe because I say so. If we lived under a justice system where an accusation equaled a jail sentence then just about everyone would be in prison for the worst of shit. We may not have a perfect system but atleast it’s better then nothing
Fart Captor
Literally all of Lin’s statement was true.
There are numerous major cities with huge backlogs of untested rape kits. In some cases they date back years.
Here’s a story from 2015 where NBC found 70,000 untested kits by looking at only 1,000 of the country’s 18,000 police departments:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rape-kits-n393186
And do you remember Brock Turner? He was convicted and only did 3 months in jail. His case may not have been typical, but it’s far from uncommon.
That isn’t justice.
I strongly doubt anyone here is saying “innocent until proven guilty” is a bad policy. It’s not. But it also shouldn’t mean that accusations get dismissed, aren’t investigated, or get the victim grilled as if they committed a crime.
If in the vast majority of cases where rapists got little or no punishment, the reason was because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, it would be a dramatic improvement over the current situation
Falcon
Both of you are actually right. Rape is certainly underreported because a lot of women don’t want to admit they were raped due to various factors and people often don’t believe them. The traditional evidentiary standards courts use also mean that reliable evidence of rape is extremely hard to come by.
This is why courts today use rules of evidence that are extremely relaxed for sexual assault and rape cases. It allows for the conviction of defendants on flimsier evidence, because flimsy evidence is all rape cases tend to get and it’s such a heinous and underreported crime that Congress was willing to take greater risks of convicting innocent people in order to crack down on rapists.
hof1991
Not just how it works, but how its designed. Feature not bug.
Zatar
The Justice System of America regularly dismisses survivors.
TheAnonymousGuy
Justice is blind means it’s blind to; Race, gender, religion, age, creed, statues but, not unto it’s self. The guilty should be punished but, not until you know their guilty. That’s why our moto is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Fart Captor
CW: Victim blaming / rape culture.
Justice is blind. The Justice System is not, because it’s made up of people. Who are subject to prejudice, bias, hate, incompetence, and all kinds of other petty bullshit.
By “dismissing survivors”, Zatar means that when one tries to report what happened, far too often they are dismissed by the police, who say they must have wanted it. They may get dismissed by prosecutors, who don’t want to take up the case because they think it “wasn’t really rape”. They may get dismissed by the courts who will try drag them through the mud for voluntarily having had sex at some point in their lives, or for having done drugs or having any criminal record. The defense will almost certainly do so.
Then finally, if they get a conviction, the judge may dismiss them by giving their attacker probation instead of jail, because they “don’t want to ruin the young man’s promising future”
Fart Captor
…and Joyce’s parents would almost certainly have pulled her out of school, while there would still be no guarantee Ryan would go to jail.
TheAnonymousGuy
and unless there’s been a change in medical law that I’m not aware of the doctors can’t tell her parents anything unless she’s allowed it, if she were incapable of making any decisions or was unconscious that’s a different story. (If there are any other exceptions I’m not aware of them)
Fart Captor
Remember how this would involve the police? They can and probably would contact either her parents or the school (who would contact her parents)
TheAnonymousGuy
Yea, I forgot that part, sorry.
Pylgrim
I am going to guess that he has been going around with the tale of the minister’s son who got assaulted by a black woman at a party so if the truth ever pokes its head people will believe that its disinformation to cover up the assault.
Jon Rich
The only “sympathizers” who “matter” in this, though, are either voters in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District—more specifically, *Republican or Republican-leaning voters,* or donors. If more of them sympathize with the minister’s son who has been accused of sexual assault, and “was assaulted by a black woman at a party,” as Pylgrim said—-if more of the voters sympathize with him than sympathize with the recently-outed lesbian Congresswoman, then it’s game over for Robin. And that’s among *Republicans,* remember.
My money’s on Ryan, in this case. Some voters are going to refuse to vote for Robin because she’s a Republican; of the remaining voters, some will refuse to vote for a lesbian, and some will probably refuse to vote for her simply because Ryan *was* an intern for her. She’s not going to be left with many voters to support her, at the end.
thejeff
Exactly. Barring some serious scandal on Jake’s side, her coming out as a lesbian and going after Ryan, isn’t going to pick up enough Democratic (or leaning) voters to make up for those she loses.
Abel Undercity
I’m going to bet that Whitney is one of those sympathizers.
AutobotDen