Guys, Let's Not Take it All Personally

Recently, many old white guys feel under attack. U.S. citizens, white folks, and males have come down in the world.

U.S. citizens still have it way better than most; but our absurd preeminence during my youth – 6% of the world’s population with 60% of its goodies – couldn’t, and shouldn’t, last.

Whites still have it pretty good (see last week’s column); and men still generally have it better than women.

Change is happening. Most white males would agree, some grudgingly, that equality is appropriate.

But while it’s obvious that whites/men have generally had easier paths to wealth and power than Blacks/women, what if you’re a white guy who started out poor, in a broken home, got shot up in war, fell pretty low, then found your way, worked your tail off, and became highly respected – and someone on Facebook says you’ve been coasting on your gender and or color? That feels personal, and unfair. Nothing came easy.

Guys, it ain’t personal, nor is it all wrong. Most of us, at some point, got a job callback or avoided a jail sentence or police harassment based on color, gender, and/or class. I sure did. If someone says gender/color/class helped me accomplish something, or “Coming from a home with two sane and well-educated parents who loved you and loved each other gave you a hell of a head start,” I can’t disagree. Didn’t ask for it, didn’t deserve it, sure was lucky.

Did my gender, skin color, and genes give me tremendous advantages? You betcha. But I can still take pride in what I made of that, and criticize myself for what I didn’t.

I wouldn’t want someone to hit me or steal my motorcycle because I’m privileged; but charging me with being privileged only hurts if I’m weak enough to let it.

A Black friend suggests that sometimes Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans should be hired ahead of a white guy, even with slightly lower qualifications. Hiring for jobs that matter, I want the best. However, the “less-qualified” gay Black woman could be the best. First, she brings diversity of experience and a fresh point-of-view. Secondly, if the white guy from an upper-middle-class family, scores 600 on our “objective” scoring system, while a Black woman brought up in the projects, who waited tables at the same school while studying, scores 580, she might easily be the far superior employee very soon. He’s on the way from 5 to 6, while she’s moving from 3 to 8 over time. If his father got gentleman’s Cs at college and stayed employed because of color and connections, while her father wasn’t around, then hiring her seems both fair and wise.

Still, much depends on individual cases; and I’d agree some white males have reason to complain.

To fellow white guys who feel aggrieved when “others” question whether they deserve what they have, or assert some privilege based on having been oppressed, you need not roll over, but don’t take it personally. We’re each unique, and may have accomplished many things of note. Others’ words shouldn’t undermine that. Those words reflect pain life has dealt them. Maybe that’s not my fault, but understanding others’ realities is good – for all of us. If you feel you’re being treated unfairly, fight it – but maybe only after reflection. Trying to see the other side might soften your reaction, even inspire you to join the fight for change.

                             - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 31 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[ A friend said, “This will rile folks up!” I kind of hope not. Don’t mean to. And it’s a beautiful autumn Sunday morning!] The column grew out of conversations with friends. It seems pretty unarguable that certain classes of people, generally, have had easier paths than certain other classes of people, for reasons unrelated to their personal characters or abilities. There’s a huge, long-term change underway. It’s generally beneficial. There’s also some real silliness articulated, some conscious abuse of the general issues, and perhaps a certain cultural fanning of the flames of victimhood.” All huge and complex. I just wanted to address this one realization, that men of quality were taking stuff too personally. That’s unnecessary (I love the Buddhist maxim that another’s anger-producing or potentially hurtful words are a chalice of poison s/he offers us, which we are free to reject, in the sense of not taking it inside us emotionally.) and counter-productive (hinders both a reasonable understanding/evaluation of what’s being said by the Other, which may be true or false or irrelevant as to you personally, but arises from experiences you may not have had or witnessed, and one’s healthy recognition of one’s own good points).

Anyway, another friend question the word “weak” as too strong, too unsubtle, and off-putting. I’d agree. What I meant is that stuff like that hurts us only if we choose to let it, in the sense of the chalice of poison analogy. “Weak” is a loaded sort of word, and an oversimplification. ]

[Separate subject: if you haven’t already, please vote! That’s standard advice, but this year, with just a few local races and no state or federal office involved, turnout is low, even compared to two years ago. Meanwhile there’s a conscious, unified effort by some to elect folks who love Donald Trump, view mask and vaccines as purely a matter of personal freedom, and think the 2020 election was fraudulent and should be reversed in some fashion. Most Las Crucens do not agree, unless there’s been a massive shift in public opinion in the past year.

Public health and equity in education, among other values, are important – and potentially endangered. Further, should we elect to local office folks sufficiently credulous or dishonest enough to press the “frauditors’” view that the election was a massive fraud, after the courts have universally concluded otherwise, or folks who oppose the vast weight of scientific opinion on climate, maks, and/or vaccines, and would place their personal or ideological preferences above science in regard to public health?

In the nonpartisan city council races, if your district is involved, I’d urge a vote for Yvonne Flores, Becky Corran, or Becki Graham; on the nonpartisan school board, I’d urge a vote for current chair Ray Jaramillo, Pam Cort, or Bob Wofford; and in the Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District board election (you may vote for 2) Gill Sorg is a proven and trusted person with ranching experience, science experience, and now several terms of City Council experience who cares about our community and the environment; Josh Switzer is young and extremely apolitical, but is dedicated to organic farming and our local environment. (You may have bought vegetables or eggs from him at the Farmers Market.)

I say “nonpartisan” because they’re meant to be, and should be. However, the Republican party has endorse candidates it likes; I could not find such endorsements from the Democratic Party, although I saw a report that Senator Heinrich endorsed Flores; and we should not vote for or against a candidate because of party endorsement, but a candidate who endorses the extreme view that the 2020 election was fraudulent is probably not the best choice for a public position with policy responsibility.]

© Peter Goodman