et. al
I wouldn’t mess with her, she contains multitudes!
I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist
What does skin color and gender have to do with this?
What does “human drivers of fire” mean?
Well I’m here so I guess I’ll answer.
There are many human drivers of fire, the first and foremost being, well you know, lighting a fire. And boy, do humans light a lot of fires.
Take for example, here is a map of active fires around the globe, right now:
First order human drivers of fire are things we actively or accidentally do to light a fire. Ignition is a fundamental for fire to happen, and humans cause WAY more ignition events than nature does. Things like a cook fire, burning brush or downed debris for management purposes, infrastructure like power lines or fueling stations, car accidents, lit cigarettes being thrown out etc… etc… The timing and frequency of these events directly influence the frequency of fires.
Second order drivers are things like vegetation management, home placing and construction, and other biophysical drivers. For example, introduction of invasive species like bromus tectorum, which burns very readily, represents more fine fuels in the environment. Yadayadayada more fires. Other things around vegetation management would fall into this category, such as the suppression of fire, or the psychical thinning of fuels in forests, or prescribed burns.
Funny, but what does the skin color have to do with the situation?
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
In most places, men are the dominant presence, and in most of the “western” world, they will also be white.
In this case, the individual who a white male was doing what’s called colloquially, “mansplaining”. He was correcting a woman when not only was the woman right, but was the very source he was using to correct her.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
In this specific case, I suspect that the person making that post was pointing to the prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her being a systemic issue arising from both gender and sexual entrenchment along with the privilege that allows the dominance of the white male demographic despite their being no quantifiable factor for that group to be dominant other than that privilege.
She, in other words, was pointing out a systemic issue by using an anecdote. Which can be a bit difficult to accept as evidence. Or would be if there wasn’t a good century or so of giant piles of anecdotes from real people pointing to that systemic issue not only existing, but being something that holds everyone back.
Truth? Yes, women and people of color are going to assume they’re right and whoever they’re talking to is wrong just like any humans will. But white dudes have been pulling that crap for multiple generations, and anyone that isn’t both white and male get sick of the bad behavior.
This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.
Pls stop generalizing this bad behavior upon all white men. It only serves to further the divide, and is completely unfair and uncalled for against those in the demographic who don’t subscribe to those beliefs or patterns of behavior.
I’m not sure if that was your intent, that’s just how it comes across and it makes it hard not to completely write off your argument/viewpoints for being unable to respect your neighbor.
I’m a white man. I can absolutely generalize about a well known aspect of reality. It isn’t in question that white men are currently in a position of overall privilege, and that as a group that position of privilege has the effect stated.
I pretty much also said that this is true in the western world where white men are the supposed majority. I said that the same would be the case with any dominant group because humans are just like that.
A generalization can not only be true in general, but it doesn’t inherently mean that the entire group is at fault (beyond any unintentional benefits from the situation, which is what’s called privilege in current discourse on matters of gender and race in specific, but applies to more than those alone).
Here’s the thing. Until and unless we, not just as white men (speaking of the group I’m in) work on calling out and correcting bad behaviors as a group, to the point that it ceases to be a problem for others, we are part of the problem, no matter how little any individual likes that.
Divisions currently exist. They will always exist because any time there is a place of authority/power, there will be those that seek it and use it. Over time, you might see a given demographic shift in and out of that place of power, but it won’t change humans being humans; there will be abuse of power.
That’s the real key. The fact that white men have held dominance over most of the world for centuries (for a given value of most, and a given value of white) is simply fact. One could argue that the position of dominance really covers all the world since anyone wanting to disrupt that has to contend against that hierarchy. There are definitely places where, within a region* white men aren’t the dominant group, kinda impossible to be otherwise. But trying to pretend that the world isn’t the way it is is just silly.
It’s not obvious? Because white males as a demographic are the most privileged people on the planet and not coincidentally also the ones most prone to petty, oblivious arrogance, tantrum-throwing, and egotistical man-splaining. The latter was demonstrated by the one in this NASA scientist’s anecdote.
This robs people of their individual context. The UK Prime Ministers wife is Indian and astonishingly privileged. You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
Lumping people into loose categories (particularly based on skin colour) and then prescribing loose values to them is fascist and racist.
You are suggesting a poor mine worker from Romania is somehow more privileged based on how he looks.
You misunderstand the concept of privilege. It’s not linear. Intersectionality was devised to solve this exact contradiction.
Expand?
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person’s circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you’re homeless and white it’s clear that you’re in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it’s unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn’t have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person’s identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
