Using "white" as a casual negative adjective is weak. I can respect non-whites using it as a term of anger or hatred. We're all big boys. But seeing it used as a term of self-hatred leaves me feeling more than a little disgusted.
(Then again, in the sense that I dislike the odd parts of me which have been bent by race and gender, and actively wish them to disappear, maybe there is something to calling it "self-hate". But it's like the self-hate of a novice, who wishes to transcend their current inability.)
So hopefully we might accept that race is a similar, complicated -ism, and it's fine to be a "race traitor" or gender traitor if yours dominates.
Your use of the word "dominates" is disingenuous. Let's imagine:
- - -
There exists a country in which 95% of all leadership in government and industry is male. There are a few women here and there, but for the most part, it's all men at the top. And at the top, people are pretty protected. They can generally get away with whatever they want, as is often the case.
This country has gender roles. Legally enforced gender roles. Women are viewed as more fragile caregivers. Men are viewed as sturdier providers. People at the top of society are pretty insulated, but for everyone else, these gender roles are a fact of life.
For a given crime, men are held to higher standards, and they are subjected to more brutal punishments. Men overwhelmingly find themselves in dangerous, thankless jobs.
Young men tend to work menial jobs, while young women tend to attend university.
Men do not live as long in this society. An overwhelming amount of public money and attention is spent on issues that primarily affect women.
And when a woman is perceived to be slighted, men and women are expected (and socially rewarded) for rushing to her aid. Men, being sturdier, are expected to fend for themselves.
- - -
Every well-off feminist man I've encountered would say that men in that society are not victims of sexism—they are simply victims of patriarchy.
Why on Earth would one call that system "patriarchy"? Aside from the top of society, men have it worse in this society. Men have it much worse. Why lump the men at the top in with the men at the bottom just because they all have penises?
Please realize that men can be sexist toward other men. Men can actively oppress other men on the basis of their gender. Men love competing with other men. Men love one-upping other men. Men love protecting women from those other, less civilized men. In short: Many men love oppressing other men.
For poorer, underprivileged men, it's incredibly marginalizing to hear a hyper-privileged man display his plumage and say it's alright to hate males, because males "dominate" society.
Unfortunately, repeating that mantra costs that hyper-privileged man nothing, yet it can potentially increase his social standing among other hyper-privileged men. So why wouldn't he?
In fact, the reason it was called "patriarchy" in the first place was to draw an analogy between men who ruled entire nations and patriarchs who had no influence outside their own family - to treat them as though they shared in and benefitted from the exact same male-dominated power structures in the same ways, ignoring little details like some of them having far more downsides than benefits.
You can use the word "Patriarchy". You can use the phrase "male domination". But it doesn't change the fact that men at the bottom have to watch the men at the top stomping all over them while preening themselves.
[1]: http://goatinahat.tumblr.com/post/45265637509/behaxrant-wesh...
It's an incredibly cruel thing to do. For example, I saw my mother beating my father all the time when I was growing up, yet I get a bunch of straight liberals yelling at me if I mention supporting the establishment of domestic violence shelters for men about how they can't believe any "legitimate" GLBT person would support something like that. I once had a person tell me that she couldn't believe any self respecting GLBT person would support them, since "ANY study" would show that men were predominantly the agressors. I linked her to 200 studies showing equal rates of male vs female aggressors, and she made a vague post about cleaning her friendslist based on "politics" and promptly removed me. I don't know how to deal with people who literally refuse to acknowledge that my entire childhood is something that could never exist. Or refuse to recognize that they're wrong, when science says something that happens to contradict their pre established worldview.
It's incredibly bewildering, and more than a little cruel. I have to deal with the memories and trauma of my childhood, on top of conservatives AND liberals being unwilling to associate with me because of my views. That are mostly based on how and where I was born (GLBT, and understanding of how women assert their "female privilege" within our current society, which is matriarchal in many respects, based on observing my mother in action for 17 years).
Conservatives hate women and liberals hate men. What's an egalitarian to do? :(
I'm already severely marginalized, and liberals shunning me isn't exactly helping. I wish they'd stop enforcing mandatory privilege checks and actually just listen to the people they pretend to be advocating for, even just for once.
"You don't deserve a safe space, John, because people with your genitals are the ones committing violence."
They have disturbingly collectivist notions of guilt.
Please don't hate yourself for the way you were born.
Believing in the moral righteousness of self-hate over unchangeable attributes invalidates the mantra of pro-GLBT rights groups everywhere. People have told me all my life that I'm disgusting and degenerate and innately evil because of something I have absolutely no control over. I don't like seeing GLBT hating themselves, and I don't like straight people hating themselves either, whether agender or female or male.
Would you tell a trans guy that he should hate himself for being male? No? Why a cis guy, then? Because the average trans guy does not want to be considered any different from the cis guy.
Of course, there are some feminists who believe that trans men are traitors to females everywhere for trying to "become" part of the patriarchy. These feminists say that trans men are just women that are trying to make a grab for male privilege, but the reality is just that the trans guy is trying to be who he is. He can't help the way he was born. And yet, here you are saying "it's fine" to be considered a "gender traitor" and that it's acceptable to "hate" maleness. Can you see how this is harmful to GLBT? We're already really marginalized as is because of the general attitude of "you were born the wrong way."
But I can't help it, and neither can you.
Do you see where I'm going with this? I hope you can understand, at least a little.
"Youth" and "maleness" were relevant. Younger people tend to be more "desperate" and willing to trade time and health to "make it" in their career of choice. They are also less likely to have young children. Males tend to be more passionate about the gaming industry.
But what is it about White people that makes them more likely to go into the gaming industry? Nothing, right? So it's not relevant to call it out in the title.
Did you just say it's respectable to hate on white people?
Not to accuse you of any impropriety, but that was the most artful dodge I've ever seen outside of a presidential debate.
Please answer the question as asked. As far as I'm concerned, anger and hatred on a racial basis is rarely, if ever justified.
^---this.
If we say it's okay for a certain race, why not the others? It's logically unsound. Far better to not hate anyone on the basis of their skin color. Only way NOT to be a racist, too, for that matter.
Put another way, it's not the whiteness itself that's objectionable, at least not exactly. It's the lack of diversity. It just so happens that the lack of diversity presently and historically manifests as a bunch of white dudes. And a great many white dudes just don't notice; for them, that's the "default."
I thought whether you agreed with a comment or found it to your own liking was supposed to be orthogonal.