Snowflake gets police captain suspended after 'white male privilege' comment

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
**** these SJWs.

What happened to freedom of speech or respecting the constitution?



Female police captain in Indiana suspended after 'white male privilege' remark

An Indiana police force placed a female captain on paid administrative leave after she told a fellow officer that he benefited from “white male privilege.” A vote on Capt. Carri Weber’s future with the Plainfield Police Department is scheduled for a commissioner’s meeting on Thursday, according to WRTV.

The incident occurred at a Nov. 1 training seminar on how police should interact with transgender people in their communities, led by a U.S. Department of Justice representative and a United States attorney.

During the presentation, an officer who spent 28 years with the department questioned a statistic presented at the conference, that members of the transgender community are 3.32 times more likely to be the victim of police violence than non-transgender people, according to WRTV. The statistic comes from the 2012 annual report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, which describes itself as an advocacy group for “local LGBTQ communities.”

Video of the event, obtained by several local news stations through an open records requests and later published to YouTube, included audio of the exchange.

An unnamed male officer questioned the statistic.

“My wife has never been part of police violence,” he said. “Most of the people that I know have never been, accused the police of violence. So I guess I don’t get where that statistic comes from.”

“‘Cause your white male privilege, so you wouldn’t know” said a woman’s voice. The woman was identified as Weber by local mediaoutlets.

“I’m sorry?” a man asked.

“Your white male privilege,” the woman repeated.

“Chief, you gonna let [unintelligible] get away with that? Seriously? I’m asking a legitimate question here, and I’m getting [unintelligible] white privilege?” the man said, his voice rising.

“Are you serious?” the man then yelled. “I find that extremely offensive.”

“White privilege” and “male privilege” are terms that have been around for years but were popularized in recent years by a 1988 paper written by Peggy McIntosh, according to the New Yorker. McIntosh, who was then a women’s studies scholar with Wellesley College, asserted that both white people and men have certain inherent social advantages in life based on those factors alone.

The phrase “white male privilege” or “white privilege” is now embroiled in identity politics, sometimes employed to suggest that because of their “privilege” white males have more difficulty understanding the grievances of other groups.

The unnamed officer filed a complaint against Weber on Nov. 10, WRTV reported.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/worl...e-male-privilege-remark/ar-BBGiu9R?li=AAggFp5
 
Last edited:

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
PC out of control. You can't even say Happy Holidays without some religious wacko going all salty.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Somebody please tell Colpy to calm down.

He's on a free speech rampage again.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,409
1,375
113
60
Alberta
You must have been at school that day.

Does that mean I could have gone to university or become anything I wanted because I'm white?

Maybe they need to insert the word, "rich."

Because I know lots of white male folk who missed out on this obvious perk.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,844
14,419
113
Low Earth Orbit
$65K of debt is what white privelege cost me to go to University.

Oops sorry. I take that back. I got a $3500 bursary the first year so it was only $61500.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Does that mean I could have gone to university or become anything I wanted because I'm white?

Maybe they need to insert the word, "rich."

Because I know lots of white male folk who missed out on this obvious perk.

Your spirited defense of free speech has been duly noted.

As has Colpy's.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
White male privilege? Did I miss a meeting?

I've found some pretty funny online responses to accusations that 'patriarchy' is the source of all of the world's problems. Comments like 'When and where will we hold the next meeting of the Patriarchs to plan who we're going to gang rape next week? And who's bringing the beer?'
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
What white male privilege? Females have far more privileges.

I don't know about that. I think discrimination against women probably still outweighs discrimination against men even today and there probably still is at least some work to be done at least in some areas.

To take just a few examples, adult women probably receive far more sexual harassment in public than men, are probably trafficked far more than men, etc.

That said, there are areas where discrimination has gone in reverse. Men are more likely to become homeless, commit suicide, die in workplace accidents, etc. Yet, when we talk about trafficking, we exclude male victims from the conversation just because they're the minority. In the case of childhood and adulthood sexual assault and domestic abuse (where studies show men and woman at almost parity), some deny that that a woman can even abuse and that a man can even become a victim. In the case of workplace accidents, homelessness, and workplace accidents, suddenly we don't talk about them as men's issues and instead talk about them as human rights issues.

So when it's an issue that mostly affects women, we say it's a women's issue. When it's an issue that affects both more or less equally, it's still a women's issue. And when it affects mostly men, it suddenly becomes a human rights issue. Too convenient. I agree that even when it affects mostly men, we should just call it a human rights issue and not a men's issue. After all, who with a heart would ignore the plight of a homeless or suicidal woman just because most homeless people are men? No one in his right mind would consider the gender statistics of homelessness or suicide to be in any way relevant. Same with workplace fatalities. It would be callous to dismiss the tragedy of a woman who dies on the job just because she represents a gender minority in that field. Again, we see it as a human rights issue and rightfully so. Some Men's Rights Advocates undermine themselves when they wrongly try to make these men's rights issues.

Unfortunately, feminists undermine their issues in the same way. For example, how is a male victim of abuse at the hands of a woman supposed to care about promoting more protection of victims of abuse when he's clearly excluded from the conversation (and is sometimes even portrayed as an abuser for being a man and his attacker as a victim for being a woman)? In fact, when a female victim of abuse at the hands of another woman is excluded (and sometimes quite explicitly and aggressively so as I've once seen), how is she supposed to care either? The moment we start to see trafficking and other female-dominated issues not just as a women's rights issue but as a human rights issue, more men will jump on board. But as long as men are demonized, then the focus turns to a battle of the sexes rather than on actually solving the problem.

In fact, we cannot deal with women's issues without addressing them as human rights issues to begin with. For example, studies have shown that most if not all abusers have been abused themselves. with that in mind, helping male victims of abuse by women would also help to reduce the rate of abuse of women by men. Why do we think so many men abuse women? If a woman abuses a boy and society dismisses him as a 'lucky boy' because she was sexy, then society is totally dismissing his trauma and confusing him. There you have a prime candidate for misogyny and a potential rapist of women in the same way that a woman who abuses boys had probably been abused by a man herself. To treat only the male abuse of women is like removing half of a tumour from the body of mankind while letting the other half grow back and then wondering in confusion why it keeps growing back.