Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

i think what the professor is trying to do, and what this thread shows is sorely needed, is to make people understand that the "white" (ore straight/christian/american/male/middle class/etc) point of view is distinct from having no specific point of view.

One of the bizarre outcomes of the increasing diversity of the last 60 years in the US is that we tend to see two types of expression: mainstream, and "diverse." What we don't see is that while there might not be a monolithic "white" culture like there is "black" culture, aspects of being white color a white persons perception.

One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

 Polonius wrote:
One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

Blammo, well put.

 Polonius wrote:
i think what the professor is trying to do, and what this thread shows is sorely needed, is to make people understand that the "white" (ore straight/christian/american/male/middle class/etc) point of view is distinct from having no specific point of view.

One of the bizarre outcomes of the increasing diversity of the last 60 years in the US is that we tend to see two types of expression: mainstream, and "diverse." What we don't see is that while there might not be a monolithic "white" culture like there is "black" culture, aspects of being white color a white persons perception.

One of the reason's the teacher didn't tell black/LGBT/female/foreign students to ignore those traits is because every person from those groups knows that there are two worlds, and they need to leave their identity a little to succeed.

They could easily do that by using general language without explicitly singling people out.

Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

Fortunately that's not what is being requested. The idea is to write from a neutral perspective.

Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

No, it's a true viewpoint. Individual white men may not have this problem, but as a group it's far more common. You know, since popular culture portrays it as the norm, and it's not exactly unreasonable to say that, as a group, people are influenced by the most common messages in culture.

Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

 Peregrine wrote:

You're missing the point entirely. Everyone should write from a neutral perspective, but let's be realistic about who need a reminder the most. A poor black woman doesn't need to be reminded that her experiences aren't universal, since everything in popular media does a very good job of that already. On the other hand, young middle class white men tend to have more problems with that understanding, so it's fair to remind them that this is an issue to pay attention to.

Well put.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Again, you are insinuating that white males are assuming their viewpoint is the norm. Which is a sexist and racist viewpoint.

No, it's a true viewpoint. Individual white men may not have this problem, but as a group it's far more common. You know, since popular culture portrays it as the norm, and it's not exactly unreasonable to say that, as a group, people are influenced by the most common messages in culture.

Thats abit of an assumption there. And a racist and sexist one at that.

Its on par with saying that, as a group, Blacks have more criminals. Just because something is true doesn't mean its not a racist thing to say.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

Doesn't change the fact its still racist and sexist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Reminding fans of a game is way different from bringing race and sex into the equation.

No it isn't. In both cases it's "singling out" a group that has, in past experience, had a higher rate of a certain problem than other groups. Focusing on race and sex is just attempting to add false controversy based on the knowledge that screaming about "reverse discrimination" is a great way to get attention from tinfoil hat conservatives.

Doesn't change the fact its still racist and sexist.

I mean, it's racist and sexist the same way only telling white guys were the sunscreen and urinals are.

It's not that white males are more likely to unaware of their lack of otherness. It's that they are the only people that can be unaware.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats abit of an assumption there. And a racist and sexist one at that.

It's not an assumption, it's common sense fact. If you are a member of the majority group you are FAR more likely to see the majority perspective as a universal one, simply because the majority message keeps reinforcing itself and you have less exposure to minority perspectives.

Its on par with saying that, as a group, Blacks have more criminals. Just because something is true doesn't mean its not a racist thing to say.

Saying that black people have a higher rate of crime isn't racist, it's just quoting statistics. It's only racist when you try to draw a racist conclusion from it, such as claiming that the higher crime rate reflects some kind of inherent criminal character of black people. Consider the following statements, both of which reference that statistic:

"Black people have more criminals, due in large part to much higher rates of poverty and fewer opportunities for success. Therefore we should consider WHY people commit crimes, and not focus exclusively on punishing the guilty."

"Black people have more criminals, because they're uncivilized and violent."

I think it's pretty obvious which one of these is racist and which isn't.

In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I happily revel in the ability to offend people.
Are you offended yet?

I'll be sure to be less Japanese, Female, 12 years old and cute the next time I happen to be writing.

you know what, my cousin majored in political science at Butler, and I think she also complained about this teacher. she's about as liberal as it comes, but even she said it was wrong to have people check their identities at the classroom door. it's funny that the first political science class I took last year the first thing I was told was: "you're in the college of liberal arts. here there are no right answers, only your ability to back up your arguments."

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

Pretty much this, seriously I haven't seen people this offended by something since Birth of a Nation.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson. Political science classes are a waste of time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson. Political science classes are a waste of time.

This. Save the outrage for when it's about a field that isn't just a license for professors to lecture about their personal opinions for three hours a week.

 Peregrine wrote:


This. Save the outrage for when it's about a field that isn't just a license for professors to lecture about their personal opinions for three hours a week.

why do you think I'm an economics major now

This thing where people whinge about the poor little white male is so fething stupid.

Full credit to Glorioski for getting the full quote and showing this as nothing more than the inane whining of a college kid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but thats not what the school is asking. They are asking the students to be free of any white male american influence that might effect their work.

Read the full quote given by Glorioski.
“to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

That doesn't mean the student has to stop being a white male American, it means he has to stop assuming that's how it is for everyone.

Society has basically approved of being sexist and racist against white males. How is this not wrong?

No, it hasn't. You're making that up in your head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we really looking this hard for something to be outraged about?

I feel that we are just receiving reposts from some sort of "this is what you (the hardworking, patriotic, freedom-loving WASP) should rage about today" mailing list...

A college kid is whining about bs. I must let the internet know about this shocking new thing.

whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Seems fair enough to me.

So... when YOU write a paper, can you disregard your (looks at your map)“UK-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” ??(I'm assuming that you're UK/male/white/straight/mid-class... if I'm wrong, sorry)

Heh, whenever I write papers, I unapologetically write with the voice of a white/male/straight/educated/able-bodied/leftist/humanist/progressive-imperialist/upper-middle-class voice.

I can't disguise it, and pussyfooting around it bores me.

to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.”

However, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask, and anyone incapable of doing so is a tool.

d-usa wrote:In this thread: people are offended because they are told to try not to offend people.

Really? What about those who are not so much offended, as irritated, that someone would assume inherent biases could be so easily disregarded without the cultural appropriation of another's voice?

 whembly wrote:
Naw... just engaging a health discussion amongst the Dakkanauts that these things exist.

So, you don't see a problem with it?

What the class should say is to check in ALL prejudice at the door and not singling out whites/american/straights/etc...

Read the quote in full, provided by Glorioski. It isn't about only white men hiding their biases. It is about no longer assuming that everyone else shares your biases, which is a privilege only white men have.

It is only common sense to recognise that while we all have bias, some of us find our bias more readily accepted by society at large because they share that bias. So, whereas a Jamaican albino lesbian might find they regularly have to explain that given their upbringing they just can't get into the Superbowl, a straight white dude will not have to spend any time at all having to explain that having grown up playing and watching the Superbowl, he happens to really love it.

She would have to say 'having grown up in Jamaica hiding from the sun and disguising my love for women, I just can't find anything to like about a game of American Football'. Whereas he would just say 'I fething love the Superbowl' and everyone would assume that's a totally normal way of looking at things - he wouldn't have to justify it by way of his POV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... being white/straight/mid-class/american is... what... ?

A state of being, like any other.

Ever notice how people will say 'oh the xyz have such an amazing culture, with their parades and music and whatever else'. And then they'll make a comment about they have no culture. Ignoring that the music they listen to, the sports they attend, the movies they watch, the restaraunts they eat at - they're all culture.

But because it's their mainstream culture, they assume it's a universal thing. That's what the guy is asking of his students - that those of you who are lucky enough to have been able to assume everyone you meet inherently shares your experience - write as if that assumption isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can't really write from someone else's perspecitive, because its theirs and not mine.

The students aren't being asked to write from someone else's perspective. They're being asked to write as if their perspective wasn't the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except that is NOT what was being said. It was asking White Males to write from a neutral perspective. It was explicitly singling out white males. Which is obviously racist and sexist.

We can't have double standards here.

No. The white male students were being asked to write under the idea that their perspective wasn't the norm.

You wouldn't ask the blind, eskimo, asexual student to write as if his perspective wasn't the norm. It would make no fething sense, because very obviously the blind, eskimo, asexual student hasn't grown up thinking that, because he would have gone through life very fething obviously seeing that hardly anyone else had a perspective on life quite like his.

I'd say not including the full quote was pretty disingenuous. It wasn't particularly bad in and of itself as historically, the narrative of the United States has been that of a middle class, white, christian dude.

But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment. Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used. And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

 Ouze wrote:

That's actually the whole reason that site exists. It's mission is to send conservative students to liberal classes and schools to report how... listen man, I don't know. I mean, no one gets drafted to go to a college, if you don't like the curriculum you're free to vote with your dollars.

That is fairly terrible logic. If someone legitimately feels this is racist, sexist, and culturalist, your advice is to suck it up and go somewhere else? Not complain, just go to the laundromat that favors their declination of character?

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment.

That's not true at all. While the professors might be in a better position, society as a whole isn't, and sheltered white middle-class college students certainly aren't. They might be by the time they graduate, but only because people still make an effort to do things like this.

And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

It's not about being a majority in the class, it's about being a majority in society as a whole. Even if they only make up 1% of the class they're still the 1% of the class that is most likely to have spent the past 15+ years of their life being used to having everything around them reflect their average life experiences and opinions.

That is fairly terrible logic. If someone legitimately feels this is racist, sexist, and culturalist, your advice is to suck it up and go somewhere else? Not complain, just go to the laundromat that favors their declination of character?

Sure, it's kind of a harsh thing to say if there's legitimate outrage. However, the point is that these stories are often little more than manufactured outrage, created by right-wing tinfoil hatters just for the sake of being angry at imaginary "leftist education abuse". Once you strip away all the false controversy and attempts to generate page views (and ad income, of course) what you're left with is some angry privileged people ranting about how unfair it is that they had to be exposed to something they don't 100% agree with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
But still - that is historically, hardly where we are at today, especially in a college environment.

That's not true at all. While the professors might be in a better position, society as a whole isn't, and sheltered white middle-class college students certainly aren't. They might be by the time they graduate, but only because people still make an effort to do things like this.

Right, but aren't women the majority overall in college, let alone in social sciences? I mean, instructing people to ignore the traditional bias in the nation's narrative is acceptable, but I notice you are ignoring when I said

 Bromsy wrote:
Would it have hurt anyone to to say - let's try to disregard any bias based on race, class, or creed you may personally hold? It's fewer letters. Save on the overhead. Fewer dead trees. Less ink used.

Is the way that the professor approached things significantly better than my idea? Is there some appreciably difference in goal or result?

 Bromsy wrote:
And I mean really, are white, middle class American men that vast of a majority of in political science classes these days, that this is such a serious problem to be addressed?

 Peregrine wrote:
It's not about being a majority in the class, it's about being a majority in society as a whole. Even if they only make up 1% of the class they're still the 1% of the class that is most likely to have spent the past 15+ years of their life being used to having everything around them reflect their average life experiences and opinions.

I guess I don't get your point. I've seen people argue in this thread that this is basically a reminder to white american males that there are opinions on various subjects that don't fit their cultural narrative. I think this is a decent sentiment, but it really ought to be applied equally. Just because many white american males deem the cultural narrative of america to be that of their own socioeconomic group hardly means that they are the only group who limits their perceptions. All groups could benefit from limiting their biases and attempting to see things from a more neutral standpoint.

How do you apply

"You are the majority in society, but that doesn't mean that your way is the right way"

to minorities?

That isn't what you should apply. What you should apply is... our goal is to mitigate bias, so disregard your preconceptions... Unless I missed something and the specific goal of the class was to disregard the majority opinion in favor of the minority opinion?