Talk:White male

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article White male, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Brendel User:Skotte

[edit] Racist?

Is this a serious article? it looks like a bunch of subjective, racist vandalism to me. 12.218.145.112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The term is used by sociologists to refer to the least discriminated group in the nation-see the reference section. I seriously doubt that "a bunch of subjective, racist vandalism" would have such references. The article explains the term very well-read it. Also, yes as this article deals with racial aspects of American society it exposes racism. If you would like you can see other articles written and maintained by myself-I assure you that I do not author "racist vandalism." Regards, Signature^brendel 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this general topic. The article obviously isn't racist. It's pretty interesting, actually (I was in a debate with someone, and this article offered a lot of exactly the kind of information I was seeking). However this article may or may not be organized in a way such that it is received kindly. I would be interested in seeing some discussion of equality efforts made by other groups. Women's rights, Racial equality, that sort of thing. Not to bog the article down, or pull away fFrom the current article's strengths, but some offering counter fFacts or links might be useful. Good article, overall. Certainly a good start, anyway. Skotte 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article has got to be kidding

This article is so blatantly skewed that it's ridiculous. If white males enjoy so much ease and comfort, sailing through life, why do they have highest rate of suicide? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00000561.htm Quote:

The age-adjusted suicide rate for whites (12.1) was almost twice that for blacks and other races (6.7). White males consistently had the highest suicide rates, with black and other males the second highest, followed by white females and black and other females. In terms of absolute numbers of suicides committed in the United States in 1980, 70% were among white males; 22%, among white females; 6%, among black and other males; and 2%, among black and other females.

End Quote.

Granted that this is an older study (1970-80), but it is still the case currently. If this article was fair it would report this side of the White Male phenomena.

Here are some newer numbers from 2004. Out of 32,500 suicides, 23,000 were committed by white males- 70%. Since white males make up about 1/3 of the population, the suicide rate of white males will be around twice that of every other group combined.

This article makes it sound like being white and male makes life all daises and roses. I'm just saying that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and this article ought to reflect that.

link: http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004datapgv1.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricyteach (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Nowhere is this article suggesting that "white males enjoy so much ease and comfort, sailing through life". This article does not say that White males are happier than others, it merely states that they face the least socio-economic discrimination. Whether or not that makes them happy is another thing! This article is not "mak[ing] it sound like being white and male makes life all daises and roses." Where does it do that? Again it does not talk about happiness, does it? It says White males, such as myself, are merely less likely to face discrimination and have the highest median income levels and best chances at getting elected into public office. Whether or not White males are happy and statisfied is a completely different subject. Suicide rates are an interesting topic but completely unrelated to this article's subject metter. If you want though, you can create an article about "suicide in the United States." Or you could, if you have sufficient references, add a section about how facing the least discrimination isn't making white males happier. Signature^brendel 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Women are acutally more likely to attempt suicide than men, but they chose methods such as ODing or cutting their wrists, while men tend to stick a knife in their chest or shot tehmselves. Males are less likely to attempt suicide then women but are more successful in their attempts. Signature^brendel

Adding to what Brendel said: There are many whites who do not like the idea of white privilege. Sociologists will agree, members of any dominant social group do not get to choose how they are treated, and may get no particular joy out of their lot in life. We have a tendency to think only of women when we talk about gender, and minorities when we talk about race. However it is very important to realize the impact the majority has on a system as a solid body. In nearly every single school shooting, the violent youth is a white male. But we rarely see anyone actually discussing the male condition. Why? Why are we so reluctant to talk about men being in control? It's an absolutely undeniable fact. Why does every criticism of this article begin with rhetorical name calling? I can understand the fFeminist perspective is uncomfortable with admitting men run the world. Speaking as a fFeminist myself, however, I assure you it is more constructive to recognize the situation and THEN begin to investigate ways to alter it. I will certainly agree the article could be fleshed out more to outline the male condition, touching on such topics as aggressive behavior, or depression. in fFact I suppose I could start that now. Skotte 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding some info about the problems of alcoholism and anger that should help make it seem less like "White Christian males" are just having an easy time. Racism effects both the oppressed and the oppressors in negative ways. It's bad for society as a whole. futurebird 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section:Violence, alcoholism and agression

Why was this deleted? futurebird 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violence, alcoholism and agression

Author and activist Jackson Katz observes, the white male has such popular role models as John Wayne to look to for a guiding "Tough Guy" ideal. ^[1] David Savran writes that events like the Oklahoma City bombing may be expressions of white male agression:

Assorted conspiracy theorists, antitax protesters, and apocalyptic millennialists hole up in Idaho, Montana, or Texas awaiting either the end of the world or the FBI. And although these different phenomena are not routinely considered by the press to be symptoms of the white male backlash, I believe they all represent an attempt on the part of white men to recoup the losses they have allegedly suffered at the hands of those women and persons of color who, in fact, have had to pay for the economic and social prosperity that white men have historically enjoyed. ^[2]

In their study Insult, Aggression, and the Southern Culture of Honor: An “Experimental Ethnography” Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett found that Southern white males (who are often more religious) follow norms characteristic of a “culture of honor.” This results in higher aggression compared to white northerners. In 3 experiments, they were insulted by a man who bumped into the participant and called him an “asshole.” Compared with northerners—who were relatively unaffected by the insult—southerners were

• more likely to think their masculine reputation was threatened
• more upset (as shown by a rise in cortisol levels)
• more physiologically primed for aggression (as shown by a rise in testosterone levels)
• more cognitively primed for aggression
• more likely to engage in aggressive and dominant behavior.

Findings highlight the insult–aggression cycle in cultures of honor for this ethnic group. Insults diminish a man's reputation and he tries to restore his status by aggressive or violent behavior.^[3]

Unusually heavy drinking by young white men has been a pattern in the US for nearly 30 years. However, in recent years this trend has decreased from 32 percent to only 16 percent of the 18-29 age group. While heavy drinking declined the number of alcohol-related problems did not. Problems such as belligerence, accidents, sense of control over drinking, work and health related problems and problems with the police, spouse and others remained at a steady level over the past decade for both whites and blacks.^[4] Affluent White men report greater numbers of drinking consequences and total drinking problems than affluent Black men. The reverse is true for poor Black and White men.^[5]

The studies you cited differentiate between Northern and Southern white males, black, white and Asian males, but not between Christian and non-Christian white males. Can you provide a specific study? You are aware that with an article like this you are paving the way for similar articles analyzing the level of violence, alcoholism, crime rates, drug abuse and agression of other ethnicities (for instance black men/black women), are you? SecurID 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic

This graphic was removed too, why? futurebird 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In 2005, non-Hispanic White men over the age of 25 had the highest median income of any other demographic group in the United States of America, among those with earnings.^[6]

And how many of them are Christians?SecurID 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority, over 75%-but this is quite irrelevant. The graph illustrates the income difference between White males and other demographics (incld. White females) something that perfectly fits into this article. Signature^brendel 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Graphics with a 25% margin of error should not be displayed on any wiki. Rbaish 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that figure?! The data comes straight from the US Census Bureau! If you have a problem with it, mail the US Department of Commerce- they published this data in the 2005 Economic Survey. It is the best data available, directly from the US government. Signature^brendel 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about "white christian males", not "white males"! Unspecific "White male" figures are irrelevant for this article. Please provide information and sources directly related to the topic (white christian males compared to other males). Anything else is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. SecurID 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The graph illustrates the difference between White males and the rest of the population- it clearly shows how White males are the least discriminated against group in this country when it comes to income. White Christian males narrows it down even further to an even less disrciminated group and is the title of this article becuase it is the term socioligist like to use. Signature^brendel 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A similar idea applies to the studies in the section that was deleted. futurebird 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whites and WCM differ in gender and religion. The given statistics and title do not match. Sorry. Rbaish 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

White males differ in gender from white christian males???? Of course the stats match. If you have a problem with the stats I can easily change the article title to just White males. That term is also used by sociologists to describe the most dominant demographic in the US-though less commonly than White Christian male which is more precise. But seeing it as this article is mainly about America's most politically dominant demographic I can change the title to White males. Also remember the 3R rule, Rbaish. Signature^brendel 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The name change is a good idea. futurebird 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it to "White males in the United States" to make sure that we are talking about a US-specific concept. Signature^brendel 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you changed it already ;-) Looks good. Signature^brendel 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chances section

The section should remove all of this oracular stuff about "chances" in life. The section is POV because it accepts the questionable claim that ethnicity & gender determine your "chances" in life. The "chances" appear to be based on current information. It is quite a stretch. I propose that the "chances" aspect be removed, and that the article simply discuss white male prosperity/success relative to other groups. This way, most of the 'real' information is retained, but the quaint 'chances' speculation is removed. The Behnam 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They determine part of your life chances. All claims are backed-up by college textbooks. If you think the section is one sided, add info stating to the contrary. Signature^brendel 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for some contrary cites sometime. What kind of textbooks are these anyway, lib textbooks? But honestly, where are these textbooks in the citations? It appears to go back to just one. Most of the section's information (census data, csm article) doesn't come from sources that talk about 'chances', but the information is being used to advance the 'chances' notion. This is unacceptable. The Behnam 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Most college textbooks will tell you that White males face less discrimination (no marble/glass ceiling) and are more likely to get hired/promoted than non-white canidates w/ the same qualifications for a given position. In other words, white males face less resistance on their way up than others of the same socio-economic status. While socio-economic status trumps race/gender in determining life chances, a working class Euro-American male will face less resistance when moving up into the middle class than a highly similar Hispanic male. That is why we talk about increased life chances. The textbooks arn't left-wing propaganda-they're published by Pearson, one of the -if not outright the- biggest publisher of college-level textbooks in this nation. Census date is used to further illustrate what is said in the textbook sources-there is nothing unacceptable here. As of now, this article is perfectly sound. If you have some concrete suggestion, however, let me know so we can discuss improvements (we can always change section titles or re-arragned parts of the article w/o losing any essential info IMHO). Thanks, Signature^brendel 06:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that there is data supporting claims that white males both in the past and present have an easier time with these things, but is this textbook (or as you say, these 'textbooks') asserting that this actually dictates life 'chances'? It struck me because it seems rather poor scholarship to take current and past societal trends & assert them as actual 'probabilities' of success in this oracular fashion. Of course, some of those kind of fields, like 'social work', are pretty much inherently liberal, so maybe that kind of illogic gets by. In any case, much of the data used in the section doesn't actually call itself 'chances' but is being used as such; this sort of synthesis is out of line with WP policies. The section should be changed to simply "Prosperity" and the mention of 'chances' should be removed. The Behnam 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not opposed to changing the section title, so long as the info needed is there. For the time being I change it to Prosperity as that seems to be good-enough title. No one is saying that this dictates life chances. But by not facing discrimination, life chances for white males increase. Facing less resistance on you're way up means you're more likely to get there if you apply yourself. Of course, this doesn't mean that White males are autonomatically better off, born with a passport to a life of reily- it merely means that -in general- they face less resistance when they attempt to climb the socio-economic ladder. FYI: There are two textbooks used in this article and sociology (incld. ethnic studies) is not "social work!" ;-) Signature^brendel 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Never said they were the same, just using it as an example of a liberal field. Social work is so broad it can barely be described as a discipline anyway. Based on the 'chances' doctrine, sociology would also seem liberal, but I'm not actually sure how much the doctrine is part of the field; this page could just be wrong. The 'chances' notion is the problem with the article that I am trying to address. It is good that the title is changed but its use in the text is still problematic, especially the overarching way it applies itself to the data provided. The Behnam 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence, stating that white males have better economic life chances is valid. It was published in a widely used college textbook and that is quite frankly all that's needed for a WP entry. If you disagree with sociologists and some of the most widely used college textbooks in this country than perhaps you should reconsider. Conservatives like to label sociologists and many social scientists (incld. economists) as "lefty" but that has little to do with this article (And whoever said that there is something wrong with citing liberal sources?! We let the connies cite their Heritage Foundation, don't we? A liberal vantage point is as good as any and there is no rule against using "liber" sources-espcially if they are in the form of America's most commonly sold college textbooks). Sociology textbook are the best authority we have on contemporary society (It is the sceince of studying society- remeber the social science building(s) at the college you attended? ;-)) and taking a statement from a social science textbook is certainly acceptable. Signature^brendel 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I hope I'm not nit-picking, but...

With regards to the following sentence:

"Certain sub-demographics such as homosexual White Christian males and those of Middle Eastern ancestry (who are legally white in the USA) as well as those Latino descent still face some discrimination."

This makes it sound as though white men can never face any sort of discrimination unless they fall within one of these categories, which is patently ridiculous. Affirmative action is an example I can think of that some regard as discriminatory; indeed, here in Ireland, it's called "positive discrimination". Perhaps it could be amended to say that "Certain sub-demographics....can often face more discrimination", or "an increased amount of discrimination", or some-such?

"Discrimination" isn't really such a good word, but I can't think of anything better at present. After all, if a man earns more because society expects him to provide for his family, and a women earns less because societal pressures means she stays at home or only works part-time, it seems just as "discriminatory" towards the man as the women. The article also seems to take it for granted that making lots of money or holding a position of power is an "enhanced life chance". I know many men who would love to stay at home raising the kids, and certainly wouldn't regard one of the most important jobs in the world as a "diminished life chance". Too much is taken for granted in this article, and its contributors need to take into consideration what they are tacitly saying when selecting certain words.

Also, it has just struck me that if only a third of US citizens are white males, a reader might be confused as to how male privilege accounts for their increased representation in politics, when two thirds of the voters (i.e. the majority who elected them) are not white males. This could be explained better. Martin 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does not say white males never face any sort of discrimination, clearly poor white males suffer the consequnces of being poor, etc... But overall, in general, white males face less discrimination and therefore face higher Economic life chances than most other groups. Also, you make an instersting point that our society does disrciminate against males by not letting them stay at home w/ children. In the US men are often not even trusted as Kindergarten teachers. These issues should definitely be incorporated into this article but haven't been yet. For the time being I tweaked the wording to be more accurate and make it clear that "life chances" only pertains to economic fortune in this article. Signature^brendel 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)