I just think that American morals are, and have always been, corrupted.
I'm not completely ignoring the fact that most of the exploitation is in fact racial, but a good proportion of it is the exploitation of vulnerable immigrants whether they be white or not.
Victor, look at the statistics. Why are those immigrant groups of colour (especially darker skinned) heavily selected over the white counterpart? I see easier access to immigrants who are white into more decent socio-economic realms. It is for this reason the more negative end of disparity is predominantly dark skinned.
One thing that does negatively impact the goal of having whites and other ethnic groups see each other as equal is the term "white guilt." It sounds like a negative label that prevents them from even attempting to want equality
However, whites do not even want equality. That is the point. The mainstream white populace works against equality in the domestic affair, leave out international. It has been the case for decades.
You need to understand what at the moment institutions of power are heavily controlled by whites. In fact institutions for those of colour do not even exist. This means potential of real equality is not even possible. Think about why humanitarian groups of colour, violent or not were whipped out by the state. All those times, most whites did not even act, because such controls were never placed on then.
In the end though, I don't see a successful revolution happening in America without uniting all of these oppressed races. If this were to happen, the numbers would be so much more toward our favor.
That is why I feel that equalization is required. Those of colour must be able to control their own institutions of power. Currently power is too concentrated and reducing it, by allowing those of colour to control their institution will play a role in a revolution.
Remember Bolshevism was a revolution in Russia. It was executed in a nation that was in ruins (unlike US et al), and yet, it's outcome (statist communist) was heavily skewed by environmental forces. To prevent that from happening, a revolution needs to well managed, and will require participation from all socio-economic groups. That means diffusion of institution power before hitting Capitalism head on.
Posted on: December 16, 2007, 08:16:32 am
[..] I find it interesting that you refer to "dominant white women". What are they dominating exactly? The catwalk? *trips over herself in excitement*
They form the vast majority of the women who have attained a decent standard of living. I suggest you to refer to socio-economic institutions.
I can't think of any other areas of power/influence or institutions where white women can be considered dominant statistically.
Did I deny that? Women do not control their own institutions, that includes whites, but white women institutional support is far greater than those of colour.
Maybe they're the grand total of six female self-made billionaires internationally, of which four are "white"? Or maybe the eight women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (2006)?
That is the case, even though whites are a minority. Numbers do not matter here, there is even a disparity here. However, note that equalization of institutions are not being asked for fair access into institutions, but primarily to eliminate the socio-economic disparity where those of colour form the vast majority of the negative side of the disparity.
Or the 15% of female ministers internationally, of which a large portion are in developing countries. Let's look at other areas, too.
Does that statistic even apply? There is a reason why a large majority of women are representing and that is because they are recent democracies. However, we ought to not be too considered with these women (note: female institutions don't exist), but rather the gender disparity within the specific nations.
Maybe these dominant white women are the sportspeople whose names we generally don't know, whose events rarely receive media coverage, whose prize money is less than men in the same sport and who often have to work second jobs to supplement their income because their achievements are so highly valued? After the grand final of the women's football World Cup this year, not one cm of sports column space in a major Melbourne newspaper was dedicated to mention who won. The funny thing is that many of the countries that did well were not "white" nations - China, Korea and Brazil all got to the quarter-finals.
So? Blacks over represent the NBA and hell even the Brazil soccer system is heavily Eurocentric. However, I am not going to digress further, because we know despite blacks over representing sports, the situation is downright dire.
Accessibility in the sports is a poor way of pointing out socio-economic disparity. The negative part of the disparity is socio-economic. Women of colour dominant the negative end, even in white nations.
Women in developing nations are often achieving milestones that countries like Australia and the US are still very far from. After their 2003 elections, 48.8% of parliamentary seats in Rwanda were held by women. Argentina, Costa Rica, Mozambique and South Africa all had over 30% in 2002. Developing countries also had many more female MPs than their Western counterparts. Rwanda and Uganda had 25% whereas the USA and France had 12% and Japan had 10%. Many developing countries also granted women suffrage earlier than first-world nations. Six of the 12 female PMs/presidents worldwide are in "non white" countries
You need to take in account in account cultures of these nation. Also many may just be exceptions. Ask yourself, where do women in general stand in these nations? This needs to be taken individually, because we need to observe socio-economic development in a more detailed manner.
In end, institutional represent means nothing if they are male-learning leaning. It's kind of ironic that 50% of female PMs are from the third world even though they make up a vast majority of the female population.
Our so-called developed nations are being pwned by Sri Lanka and Lesotho ffs. Those rankings are based on economic participation, eduactional attainment, health and political empowerment.
Developing nations form the majority in our world and hence the ranking ought to be dominated by the third world. Interestingly, even though we look for exceptions, we still see a glaring disparity.
Now ask, what about the disparity within these multi-cultural white nations? Why are the vast majority of those in the bottom of colour. That is how you observe disparity, because we need to understand that Sri Lanka isn't Australia. Maybe the nation will develop into one that is more gender equal, however we need to observe the disparity itself which you are pointing out with your evidence.
In other words, I do not want to see socio-economic progress amongst women of colour being an exception. There should be an equal probability of entering this realm. Also, it's far more effective observing the disparity within the nation, because I also could have used Saudi Arabia and a bunch more, to point out that nations where females rank the lowest w.r.t. gender equality tend to be from the third world.
Don't get me wrong feminist movements are far more cleaner than led by males. However white feminists cannot suggest that their experience is the same, regardless of "prominent roles". We need to look at a more foundation socio-economic level. In the third world and the so called first world, women of colour form the vast majority in the negative end of the disparity.
To have access to a superior environment: education, health, housing, etc, which explains we see a hierarchal or racialized disparity is certainly a privilege. Male dominance amongst the lower class, even those of women, exemplifies male supremacy which is a privilege that even I am granted.
Note, when I refer to feminism, I mean much more than the movements themselves. Immortal Technique and Hip Hop for instance is the reason why most joined these boards, but look at the large disparity w.r.t. views? These exist, because those who clustered with him come from a variety of environments. That is what we need to take in account as well. It is a fact that women who are white support white structures, and that is why they do better as a
whole within the domestic and international sphere.
If both were exactly the same. White women wouldn't feature lower poverty rates, greater health, higher educational level, income and what not. You need to understand that the disparity is highly racialized and if probability were the same, women of colour would not
dominant the negative end of these indicators.
I think I've already addressed this sufficiently. On these forums, discussions about racism are often more involved and in-depth than those about sexism.
Yes.
As I said above, I acknowledge the link but mentioned the "bitch" reference because I knew no one else would. Since everyone else was arguing about racism, I don't think an extra voice repeating the same thing is needed.
A large number of the forumites opposes the use of the term. I do, and my criticism doesn't lie there. Rather it should have also taken in account the racial disparity amongst women. You being from Australia should notice the value of white skin in that nation.
No women would want to be an aboriginal, no one would.
