White privilege

[temptotalk]

yeah... something someone said about "adolescent blowhard" and "debating the point or shutting the fuck up"..... as it were.

The best part. She'll go completely nuclear if anyone says anything about cops but will stay silent as a rock when it's about muslims, women, black people, asians, mexicans, veterans, refugees, the elderly and just about anyone and anything else. The very example of what happens in america.

Was silent with the kill their families thing, was silent when refugees had no where to go and were (still) dying, when veterans benefits weren't available, with the rapists and murders thing, with the abortion thing and so on. If you can get that passionate about one topic. If you care that much about human beings. Where is your heart with other human beings?

 

[b.c.]

[NOTE: on re-reading post 499, the following corrections are in order:

paragraph 4, change "that means" to "does that mean"
paragraph 5, change "it never make" to "it never made"
paragraph 8, change "you only show" to "you only show up"
paragraph 9, change "dribble" to "drivel" ]

Getting back to the o.p. here is a 2004 study on privilege and "the benefit of the doubt."

In the study, "white sounding names" and "African American sounding names" (their terminology... not mine) were attached to fictitious resumes and submitted to potential employers who placed help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. The result, "white sounding names" received 50% more callbacks. They found the racial gap uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. Their conclusion then: "Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market."

Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

"Dated information!" one might cry. But cut to 2014 and we find:

www.huffingtonpost.com: U.S. Companies Often Assume Black Job Applicants Do Drugs

In which the following is stated:

"More than any other group, black job applicants are being turned away by U.S. companies under the implicit assumption that they are using illegal drugs,.. "

And HERE IS THE "RUB":

"... enacting pro-drug testing laws improves the share of blacks working in ... high-testing industries, while leading to a decrease in the share of whites working in such industries... In states that enact anti-testing laws, the opposite proves true: Limiting drug testing appears to hurt black applicants much more than it hurts whites."


White privilege?? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.... NO such thing.

 

[Jjz1109]

Is it white privlege? I recall the recent uproar when Raven Simone said on that women's show that she would never hire someone with a "black" sounding name. Is it more about our personal perceptions in certain situations, this one a perceived fit when hiring someone, as opposed to as you believe, white privlege and the implications of racism? I'm sure you would like it to be. I would venture to say that a "Jane Chung" might be called in for an interview before a "Xi-Ching Chung," or even for that matter, before a "Mary Smith" these days. Understand the opposite might very well occur as companies look for more diversity. Jamal might get that interview before Tom. And not saying that's wrong, only how things are changing.

 

[keenobserver]

Is it white privlege? I recall the recent uproar when Raven Simone said on that women's show that she would never hire someone with a "black" sounding name. Is it more about our personal perceptions in certain situations, this one a perceived fit when hiring someone, as opposed to as you believe, white privlege and the implications of racism? I'm sure you would like it to be. I would venture to say that a "Jane Chung" might be called in for an interview before a "Xi-Ching Chung," or even for that matter, before a "Mary Smith" these days. Understand the opposite might very well occur as companies look for more diversity. Jamal might get that interview before Tom. And not saying that's wrong, only how things are changing.

You make some points I agree with - I remember the Raven Simone comments and I have heard them echoed before by other black friends who said similar things. The distinction they made was specifically they did not like names that were variations on traditional spellings of names - like Kahlib for Caleb, Jaymes for James, and they did not like names that were created with unusual punctuation - the name that was used as an example was Ja'nais - which the parents pronounced Janice. The point was they felt the names made it more likely a kid was always going to have to explain his name in school at roll calls and it was setting the kid up for years of being mispronounced - and possibly mocked by peers.

I think you are also right that Mary Chung may get a call back faster than Mary Smith for some jobs - bias can go both ways.

Still I can see with a lot of anti-Muslim rants going on that names that have their origins in Muslim culture may more likely see bias against the person with the name. I have also seen it happen to Jewish names as well.

 

[temptotalk]

Is it white privlege? I recall the recent uproar when Raven Simone said on that women's show that she would never hire someone with a "black" sounding name. Is it more about our personal perceptions in certain situations, this one a perceived fit when hiring someone, as opposed to as you believe, white privlege and the implications of racism? I'm sure you would like it to be. I would venture to say that a "Jane Chung" might be called in for an interview before a "Xi-Ching Chung," or even for that matter, before a "Mary Smith" these days. Understand the opposite might very well occur as companies look for more diversity. Jamal might get that interview before Tom. And not saying that's wrong, only how things are changing.

Ummm jamal? Yeah hiring anyone based on the sound of their name is stupid and potentially racist/bigoetted/misogynist/the rest of the stuff. I'm guessing the intent when it comes to diversity is to hire people of color or women with the same skills as white people (or men) because racism/bigotry/whatevs has effected things so much that they wouldn't normally get hired.

Basically...

Adding diversity = giving racism/bigotry/misogyny/homophobia/xenophobia/islamophobia the middle finger.

White privilege in the hiring process means a white person gets hired before others who are equally skilled because people feel they are the better choice for whatever stereotyped bullshit reason.

Raven simone not wanting to hire someone based on their name is the same as people not trusting barack obama because of his name. It ignores the personality, person history and skills of the person in question in favor of either a stereotype or general idea that doesn't necessarily apply. I'm sure thats when the interview process comes in. If in fact the interview process comes in. That and the inspection of work history and all that.

For instance. My username here is temptotalk yet people modify it to tempted. Consciously or unconsciously people put their own spin on things for whatever purpose.

 

[Jjz1109]

You make some points I agree with - I remember the Raven Simone comments and I have heard them echoed before by other black friends who said similar things. The distinction they made was specifically they did not like names that were variations on traditional spellings of names - like Kahlib for Caleb, Jaymes for James, and they did not like names that were created with unusual punctuation - the name that was used as an example was Ja'nais - which the parents pronounced Janice. The point was they felt the names made it more likely a kid was always going to have to explain his name in school at roll calls and it was setting the kid up for years of being mispronounced - and possibly mocked by peers.

I think you are also right that Mary Chung may get a call back faster than Mary Smith for some jobs - bias can go both ways.

Still I can see with a lot of anti-Muslim rants going on that names that have their origins in Muslim culture may more likely see bias against the person with the name. I have also seen it happen to Jewish names as well.

Thanks dude.

I can tell you it goes both ways. We just hired a butch, lesbian receptionist in our waiting area. Crew cut and all. She even wears a tie. Quite the statement for a button down, financial services firm. I wonder if she feels she's on display to show how far we've come. So we have disingenuous behavior to show how politically correct we are. It's messed up. Maybe I need to change my name to Jamal, or even better, Lekisha, get that gender correction surgery, and wear a yamulke so I can get that promotion I feel I deserve.

 

[deleted15807]

White privilege in the hiring process means a white person gets hired before others who are equally skilled because people feel they are the better choice for whatever stereotyped bullshit reason.

It's the "in-group/out-group" pattern of human behavior that the "in-group" rarely wants to acknowledge they have lest their "accomplishments and standing" is called into question.

In-groups, out-groups, and the psychology of crowds

Do note your verbal advisory is completely befret of empathy/suggestion #2 (psychopathic tendencies?)....

Maybe I need to change my name to Jamal, or even better, Lekisha, get that gender correction surgery, and wear a yamulke so I can get that promotion I feel I deserve.

Congratulations in one sentence you've managed to spill all your venom for all the groups you feel are getting what YOU deserve. Time to take America back Jjz!!

 

[Klingsor]

Thanks dude.

I can tell you it goes both ways. We just hired a butch, lesbian receptionist in our waiting area. Crew cut and all. She even wears a tie. Quite the statement for a button down, financial services firm. I wonder if she feels she's on display to show how far we've come. So we have disingenuous behavior to show how politically correct we are. It's messed up.

You didn't mention: How is she at her job?

 

[Jjz1109]

You didn't mention: How is she at her job?

Don't know. Nor, any of the other candidates that didn't have her obvious qualifications.

 

[Jjz1109]

It's the "in-group/out-group" pattern of human behavior that the "in-group" rarely wants to acknowledge they have lest their "accomplishments and standing" is called into question.

In-groups, out-groups, and the psychology of crowds

Do note your verbal advisory is completely befret of empathy/suggestion #2 (psychopathic tendencies?)....



Congratulations in one sentence you've managed to spill all your venom for all the groups you feel are getting what YOU deserve. Time to take America back Jjz!!

Lol. Don't misconstrue. It's the obvious, over the top, PC that is the craziness we are living through. If you miss how someone is being exploited to make a point, that's your issue.

 

[Klingsor]

Don't know. Nor, any of the other candidates that didn't have her obvious qualifications.

Then I'm puzzled. You rail against the hiring, yet you have no knowledge how she measures up against the one criterion that, I'm sure we both can agree, really matters?

 

[Jjz1109]

Then I'm puzzled. You rail against the hiring, yet you have no knowledge how she measures up against the one criterion that, I'm sure we both can agree, really matters?

I rail against her being used as a symbol, not against her. I don't doubt her abilities, nor those of any of the other candidates seen for this position. Also, a rebuttal to earlier posts re: white privilege commentary, how others of diversity don't have opportunity. Oh, sorry, my bad. She is white. White privilege.

 

[temptotalk]

It's the "in-group/out-group" pattern of human behavior that the "in-group" rarely wants to acknowledge they have lest their "accomplishments and standing" is called into question.

In-groups, out-groups, and the psychology of crowds

Do note your verbal advisory is completely befret of empathy/suggestion #2 (psychopathic tendencies?)....



Congratulations in one sentence you've managed to spill all your venom for all the groups you feel are getting what YOU deserve. Time to take America back Jjz!!

Oh i agree but lately it's taken a completely different turn...victimhood. These guys don't even realize how hard they're projecting. It's like trying to talk politics with a mime.

You say: People are being screwed.

They say: No! I'm being screwed!

You say: That person or group has been discriminated against.

They say: Reverse racism hahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

I'm guessing the very nature of this strategy..cause thats what it is...is to frustrate the hell out of a person so much that they fall into a stereotype.

Angry black person.

Angry liberal.

Angry feminist.

Angry muslim.

So they can in turn sit back and be seen as...civilized.

You kind of reminded me of a few experiments i read about but i'll send them to you in a message.

 

[Klingsor]

I rail against her being used as a symbol, not against her. I don't doubt her abilities, nor those of any of the other candidates see for this position.

If she is being used as a symbol, the same would hold true of the other candidates as well. Anyone placed in a highly visible position like that makes a statement about the company and its values. The only potential problem I see is if this particular statement is hypocritical and doesn't reflect the company's hiring practices in general.

 

[Jjz1109]

If she is being used as a symbol, the same would hold true of the other candidates as well. Anyone placed in a highly visible position like that makes a statement about the company and its values. The only potential problem I see is if this particular statement is hypocritical and doesn't reflect the company's hiring practices in general.

You get it.

 

[Klingsor]

You get it.

But in that case, refusing to hire *her* would only compound the problem. Instead, you should urge the company to show a similar openness across the board.

 

[deleted15807]

Lol. Don't misconstrue. It's the obvious, over the top, PC that is the craziness we are living through. If you miss how someone is being exploited to make a point, that's your issue.

Misconstrue? Is there room for misinterpretation given your rant? And missing the point? From the Master of Missing The Point (intentionally I might add). And everytime I hear that trite PC line I have to grab the Immodium.......

The notion of political correctness became popular on college campuses a quarter-century ago but has recently grown into the mother of all straw men. Once a pejorative term applied to liberals’ determination not to offend any ethnic or other identity group, it now is used lazily by some conservatives to label everything classified under “that with which I disagree.” GOP candidates are now using the “politically correct” label to shut down debate — exactly what conservatives complained politically correct liberals were doing in the first place.

The GOP turns ‘political correctness’ into the mother of all straw men​

 

[StormfrontFL]

Thanks dude.

I can tell you it goes both ways. We just hired a butch, lesbian receptionist in our waiting area. Crew cut and all. She even wears a tie. Quite the statement for a button down, financial services firm. I wonder if she feels she's on display to show how far we've come. So we have disingenuous behavior to show how politically correct we are. It's messed up. Maybe I need to change my name to Jamal, or even better, Lekisha, get that gender correction surgery, and wear a yamulke so I can get that promotion I feel I deserve.

Or perhaps just be good at your job.
This woma just couldn't be good at her job. She had to have been hired over someone you find more preferable in order to make a statement. Just as any minority that's hired as opposed to a white candidate can't be qualified.

 

[Jjz1109]

Or perhaps just be good at your job.
This woma just couldn't be good at her job. She had to have been hired over someone you find more preferable in order to make a statement. Just as any minority that's hired as opposed to a white candidate can't be qualified.

Who said she wasn't qualified? I'm sure she is. The point is that diversity clearly exists. I have a diverse team that works for me. And I hired them because they were the most qualified, not to make a statement. I guess that was my white privilege.

 

[b.c.]

Is it white privlege? I recall the recent uproar when Raven Simone said on that women's show that she would never hire someone with a "black" sounding name. Is it more about our personal perceptions in certain situations, this one a perceived fit when hiring someone, as opposed to as you believe, white privlege and the implications of racism? I'm sure you would like it to be. I would venture to say that a "Jane Chung" might be called in for an interview before a "Xi-Ching Chung," or even for that matter, before a "Mary Smith" these days. Understand the opposite might very well occur as companies look for more diversity. Jamal might get that interview before Tom. And not saying that's wrong, only how things are changing.

Thanks dude.

I can tell you it goes both ways. We just hired a butch, lesbian receptionist in our waiting area. Crew cut and all. She even wears a tie. Quite the statement for a button down, financial services firm. I wonder if she feels she's on display to show how far we've come. So we have disingenuous behavior to show how politically correct we are. It's messed up. Maybe I need to change my name to Jamal, or even better, Lekisha, get that gender correction surgery, and wear a yamulke so I can get that promotion I feel I deserve.

I don't know which I find more despicably TELLING of you, bud. Your penchant for denying and refusing to accept study after study disclosing racial disparities, or (like your cohorts) your tendency to DRUM up whatever odd black person you can find to lend validity to such bullshit.

What was it? Studies revealing racial disparity in medical treatment couldn't be true, because that'd be a major scandal if it were?? Must be the fault of black patients, I think you suggested? Or the study revealing how voter registration laws helped Republicans and hurt minority voters... you'd like to see the "whys" I think you said??

But before you reply with that same old song and dance about how I typically resort to ad hominem attacks rather than debating the point, here it is:

The POINT is that, in spite of the undoubtedly ESTEEMED and well informed opinion of some Raven f***ng Symone (at LEAST get her name right) as to whether she'd hire someone with what she called a "ghetto sounding name," (and since YOU brought her up, let's get this *******'s EXACT quote: “I’m not about to hire you if your name is Watermelondrea.”)

the findings of the study in question cannot be so easily dismissed, in that the researchers sent some 5,000 applications for jobs from "a large spectrum of job quality", and applications bearing names that more likely than not belonged to African American applicants received LESS callbacks, and in SPITE of the apparent qualifications of the applicant.

In short, the applicants were PREJUDGED and DISMISSED based upon their NAMES, names typically associated with black people.

Just as you in turn totally ignored the second study I posted... the one that found black applicants were being turned away from jobs simply because employers ASSUMED they did drugs.

Or perhaps you have an explanation for THAT. Or the revelation that WHEN tested white applicants were found more likely to FAIL, something ELSE bigots or deniers of preference are inclined to DISMISS.

As for which of the two are YOU I'm not inclined to SAY, though judging from that rather CRASS bit of S**** you wrote about an LGBT employee "on display to show how far we've come", and that other bit of snarky bullshit about "disingenuous politically correct behavior" and how changing your name to Jamal would no doubt get you that promotion, I THINK I have a pretty damned good IDEA.