the intersection of Whitey and Manly
Laydeez!
I'm not pathological because the bar is so very low.
Isn't that what the linked article talks about? Or maybe I just don't understand how that's different from looking at it as intersectionality.
Yeah, maybe. Do those particularly sociologists generally study intersectionality?
Does "intersectionality" just mean "study sub-sub-groups on a case-by-case basis"? Or does it mean "when two identities intersect, there's some broad things that tend to happen, and we can find broad trends across different sub-sub-groups (while also studying each in its own right)"?
The intersection of masculinity, football, and alcohol.
Anyway, I deeply resent the "Let's Drop a New York Reporter Into a Mostly-White Shithole and Pronounce Deep Thoughts on Why They Voted for Trump as If That Explains the Relatively Wealthy Suburban Fuckwits Who Actually Put Trump Over the Top" school of journalism. Maybe sociology will do better.
That's also my drum that I beat. Am I doing that here?
No. I march to the beat of a different drummer.
Specifically, the guy from Def Leppard with only one arm.
I'm starting to think the core problem with the new Star Trek's lead role is they set out trying to make a Strong WOC Character and instead wrote her with the unjustified confidence of a mediocre white man.
(Hint, hint.)
Whites are not more likely to be mass murderers than non-whites. They are equally likely. There is nothing to intersect; it is all maleness
Picard wasn't that bad.
I was going to say, most starfleet captains are overconfident in their own beliefs.
I don't remember if this addresses intersectionality specifically, but Daniel Wickberg's "Heterosexual White Male: Some Recent Inversions in American Cultural History" is worth reading, but also walled off here http://www.jstor.org/stable/3660528
I was wondering if the inverse of intersectionality--looking at overlapping privileges, instead of overlapping/opposing lack-of-privileges--should be unionism or unionality or whatever, but of course that's an overused word and is perhaps too positive to use to describe privilege. It would be clearer, mathematically, if we described privilege using the lattice/order terms of meet/infimum and join/supremum.
Hrm, maybe I should have put that in useless-brain-fart HTML tags. Anyway, white dudes are awful in ways that are more than the sum of their privileged parts. Obviously.
Yeah, the right has decided to pick up intersectionality as a difficult to understand concept, but it simply means that people have more than one facet to their identity, and the intersection is not simply the sum of its parts. It's actually pretty intuitive when you think about it. (e.g., black women don't get treated as delicate and helpless the way white women do, or being a gay latino means the cops are less likely to see you as a gang banger (according to a talk I attended)).
There are definitely sociologists who study white men (or the intersection of whiteness and maleness), but I can't think of names off the top of my head. Scott Keisling is an anthropologist of white men, but he might not use the word 'intersectionality' in his writing.
18
As I understand it, intersectionality is equally relevant to overlapping privilege.
Whites are not more likely to be mass murderers than non-whites.
I didn't believe this, but Politifact says it's so. Methodologically, it seems a bit suspect--the expert is using a database that goes back to 1900. The US has undergone such demographic change over their timescale that even though the percentage of perpetrators that are white and the percentage of males that are white line up well, that could be a coincidence--there were both a larger percentage of white Americans and a smaller number of spree shootings in the past. I'd rather know about the percentage of white perpetrators in the last ten years.
20: Good to know. I figured it would, but I always hear it in the context of at least one dis-privilege. Really a missed opportunity to use some mathy terms.
There was a pretty atrocious evpsych article linked on metafilter the other day, culminating in an awesome graph of male and female "reproductive value" versus age (dammit, I knew I should've married a 23 year old).
Anyway I found Heebie's question interesting and Buttercup's answers helpful, but it's important not to lose sight of the true reason why [male bad behaviour]: because on the veldt, mumble handwave cough.
On the veldt, those that put a name to their posts were more easily identified by predators.
19.1: Gay gang bangers are allegedly a thing too.
Oh my god. I just had an epiphany that my Biological Anthropology phase in college - pure, unadulterated veldt worship - was developmentally speaking my Ayn Rand phase.
that reproductive value graph is completely made up http://blog.michael-lowry.com/2012/05/reproductive-value-and-marriage-bargain.html "It would be fun to find a rigorous way to actually measure RV and test these theories experimentally."
On the veldt, men who could make plausible-looking but unsupported graphs were better able to reproduce.
i suppose it could have been (ever so slightly) worse, heebs, it could have been ev-psych.
Women are more susceptible to biological anthropology because of their greater reproductive investment in each offspring unit.
Hey there, You have done a great job. I will definitely digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I am
confident they will be benefited from this site.