Will the US, and Western culture generally, ever be able to shed the white, male, bias?
Asked by
ibstubro (
18804)
September 24th, 2016
I read an article from Us magazine about the break-up of the Jolie-Pitt family where it was alleged that Brad Pitt was abusive during an international air flight. I was struck by the sexism of the FBI’s statement:
“In response to your inquiry regarding allegations within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; specifically, an aircraft carrying Mr. Brad Pitt and his children, the FBI is continuing to gather facts and will evaluate whether an investigation at the federal level will be pursued.”
If that blatant sexism gets by federal censors, do people have a prayer on the local level? “Mr. Brad Pitt and his children”, reads, to me, like “The massa and his chattel.” No mention of “the little woman” at all.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
By definition the State is the organization which is best able to organize violence. If another organization was better at organizing violence, it would be the State. So if there is a State, it will always be violent. Violence involves the use of force against people who do not wish to have violence performed on them. We can therefore conclude that violence creates social classes: the class of people who perform violence, and the class of people who have violence performed against them.
This is why the State is always classist and always oppressive. Asking whether the State will ever be non-classist and non-oppressive is like asking if liquid water will ever be non-wet: it is wet by definition. If liquid water ever stops being wet, it’s no longer liquid water. So the answer to your question is, definitively, no. No, Amerika and its instruments of oppression will never be non-classist and non-oppressive. That won’t stop liberals and social democrats from trying, of course, because some motherfucker’s always trying to ice skate uphill.
Is that description sexist? Or, is it simply describing the children in relation to the alleged abuser? If Angelina Jolie was accused, would it not then read Ms. Angelina Jolie and her children?
I suppose they could have listed the children by name, but then you’re publishing names of minors (despite them being well known).
Now if the article read the children of Mr. and Mrs. Brad Pitt — sure, that’s sexist.
@ibstubro That isn’t sexist at all. Ms. Jolie was not part of the investigation. The focus was on Pitt and his children. Why would Ms. Jolie be included in the statement?
By the way, there are no “Federal censors.”
Two points:
Brad Pitt and his possible misdeeds are not the example on which I would make a stand on white man’s cultural predominance.
But more broadly, it isn’t just white man’s American culture – it’s culture (white, black, brown, or whatever) dating back 6000+ years. Or more. With very very few exceptions, tribes and societies have been male driven since the beginning of humans.
So are you asking: will civilization as a whole make a change this year that has eluded all of the previous generations back to Cro-magnon man?
Simple answer: no
I think the black male bias is even bigger.
Personally, most parents have a blowout or two with their teenage kids, I could care less if Brad got in his kids face. Not my business.
I’m not going to read into how an FBI report was written. I’d need to know much more to jump to the conclusion that he was abusive. If Jolie wasn’t specifically part of tge incident then why would she be named? I don’t know if she was or wasn’t.
I don’t assume sexism at all regarding this.
From a general standpoint I think women will only more and more be treated equally.
As the other adult present, of course Jolie was involved.
And she was supposedly so upset over the incident that she filed for divorce after.
Answer this question
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.