From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:43:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <nlkd1e4@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:

>Why is it that most of the individuals in power in the United States are
>white heterosexual males?  

  Probably two main reasons:

  Male, because **in general** males tend to be more aggressive 
  and competitive than females, and more likely to sacrifice things
  like family and other relations in their quest for success, and
  this helps when clawing your way to the top of political, academic
  or corporate organizations.   I have no opinion about whether this
  feature is biological or cultural, nor does it really matter: it
  exists and it's well documented (again, *in general*).

  White and heterosexual, because our culture favors these things
  so such people are more likely to be accepted, and less likely
  to be harrassed, objected-to, etc, than non-white, non-heterosexuals.
  Was this supposed to be trick question?


>Nope.  It may be a case of cause and effect, but you must admit that
>black males experience more harassment from police officers than white
>males.  Right?  Now, it is not like there is an organization called "white
>police officers who harass black males" but they still do it.

  Right.  It's diffuse, cultural, informal.  That's how societies
  *work* and trying to change these things through formal or institutional
  means is clumsy, extremely difficult, and more often than not fails.
  There are VERY few instances in history where government and law have
  been able to fundamentally change the underlying culture, and fewer
  still where these changes were for the better.  (e.g., 50 years of 
  socialist rule DID change the culture in East Germany, but probably
  not for the better.)


>Not all white males are terrible people (some of my best friends are white
>males ;-).  However, if you look at the people who have been running things,
>and you look at the people who have been fucking things up, and you look
>at the people who are leading us into disaster, what are they?  White
>heterosexual males.

  But are we "headed for disaster" (etc, etc) BECAUSE they are WHM's,
  or are we header for disaster anyway, and the leaders are WHM's due
  to all of the aforementioned?   SubSaharan Africa is in vastly, unspeak-
  ably, hellishly worse shape than we are.  Political violence, corruption, 
  ecocide, AIDS, poverty, etc, all off the scale compared to the US, and
  their leaders are nonwhite.   Is that causal?



>white males are in the most powerful position in american society.  It is
>a cultural thing.  Because of this, it is much easier for a white male
>to advance than it is for anyone else.  Because of this, there are more
>white males in power positions.  These people are responsible for the
>"state of the union".

  I agree with all here but the conclusion.  I say that "the state of 
  the union" is an emergent phenomenon and is caused by bottom-up, not
  top-down factors.  


> These are the people who sexually harassed Anita Hill in congress.  These are
> the people who are not acting on the AIDS crises.  These are the people who
> are sitting around talking as our economy gets worse and worse.  These are the
> people who are sitting around doing nothing as the environment gets worse and
> worse.

  But they are also products of the underlying culture, and of the 
  various political, social, economic and other factors that allow them 
  to have their positions in the first place.  A congressman, or an ad
  agency executive, (etc) is not some discreet entity you can just
  pluck out of the system as an autonomous agent.  Who he is and his
  choices and behavior are intricately tied to his circumstances.

 
>white males are not necessarily the bad people in the power structure.
>However, white males are the people in charge, and therefore, they are to
>blame.

  That they are "in charge" is somewhat illusory.  Their power is an
  epiphenomenon.   You're basically saying that George Bush "could" 
  be pro-choice on abortion, or Jesse Helms "could" come out in
  favor of gay rights.   But in what sense is this true?  Not only
  would they have to "be" somebody else to do these things, but 
  their whole position in their political/social/psychological environ-
  ment would be instantly de-legitimatized.   Blaming those in "power"
  for not being who you want them to be is like blaming a fish for not
  being a dog . . .    
  
> As a gay man, who looks like a thug, I am subject to many stereotypes.
       
  . . . or a gay man for not being heterosexual.   I presume that your
  state of being gay, by now as an adult, is more than just a matter of
  sexual preference:  you are part of a *community*, you have a place
  and connections within that community.  I presume that like most
  communities (computer hackers, middle-class suburbanites, Republican
  country club members, Army officers, etc) you walk the walk, you talk
  the talk, you know what's expected and how things work, and so forth.
  If somebody could wave a magic wand and suddenly turn you into a 
  straight male it would uproot you in more ways than just sexual
  preference.   Yet are you "responsible" for being who/what you are?   


  Everybody wants simple answers, simple explanations, simple causes,
  simple heros and villians.   Me too.  But I just don't see any basis
  for being hopeful about it.   Any intellectually honest assessment of
  how human societies actually work suggests that they are ENORMOUSLY
  complex, and simplistic models, though emotionally satisfying, don't
  have much predictive or explanatory power.   People used to think
  that earth, air, water and fire were the only elements and diseases
  were caused by "humors".   Simple perhaps, but better?


---peter

  
  


Xref: sparky soc.motss:32509 talk.politics.misc:35927 alt.individualism:4590 alt.activism:13482