Comments on: What Causes Inequality? Systemic and Individual Frames for Racism in Media

By: fmf

fmf — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 11:22:00 +0000

Good question, well written. I think it’s more that if you live in this system, and are told it’s a free meritocracy, and yet see that certain demographics are poorer or do one kind of job, you’ll often get people explaining it through stuff that stars to be individually harmful, I.e black people don’t earn as much. They must be lazy or stupid. Women work with children a lot; they must not be able to do hard science, they must be driven by biological urges. And this is harmful, because it’s not true, and also, there will be people who want to break out of their socially chosen role, and if they manage, they will face fear and confusion from people who were led to believe that they understood the world; this can result in serious violence.

By: Systemic Inequality | Sociology 123, Introduction to Sociology

Systemic Inequality | Sociology 123, Introduction to Sociology — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:52:46 +0000

[…] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/02/27/what-causes-inequality-systemic-and-individual-frame… […]

By: Tesettur Giyim Trend | What Causes Inequality? Systemic and Individual Frames for Racism in Media

Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:21:17 +0000

[…] post originally appeared on Sociological Images, a Pacific Standard partner […]

By: Kali

Kali — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 23:36:00 +0000

Sure, pander to bias instead of calling it out. Can’t afford to offend the powers that be. But the powers that be are not going to change the system out of a lack of offense. And the existence of the term “class warfare” shows that framing the issue in terms of class will be about as helpful as framing it in terms of race, i.e. not helpful at all. No, change will not come from the top – voluntarily, at least. The question is how can the people at the bottom force that change – what leverage do they have and how do they use it?

There is always some Machiavellian logic (masquerading as a practical solution) defending the status quo. Machiavellian logic is not the driver for change. It is a driver for selling out and playing rigged games.

By: myblackfriendsays

myblackfriendsays — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:45:00 +0000

I wrote a blog post about this several months ago. Even if legislation is changed so that all schools receive the same amount of funding, they will still be unequal because of fundraising. I went to a great school in a great school district. The money we got from property taxes got us what we needed, but we just did fundraising to get the things we wanted; things that gave us even more of an edge over students from other schools. And it’s more difficult to fundraise if you don’t live around people with the means or the desire to give additional funds. Things won’t change until those with means truly welcome competition from those without means. It’s unlikely to happen–but we all know a victory really isn’t that sweet if you know your competition had little chance of beating you in the first place.

By: myblackfriendsays

myblackfriendsays — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:34:00 +0000

Wow. Principal sounds like someone I would love to have educating my children. #not

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:36:00 +0000

I would argue that it does in a practical sense, for both racist and non-racist reasons.

Look at how much of a fight there is over affirmative action based on race, compared to affirmative action based on poverty. Racist people are unhappy that you’re showing favoritism to blacks. Even relatively non-racist whites can start to feel like the system offends their base sense of fairness.

It also makes it more of a niche issue. I will never be black — but I could be poor. This blog has itself often pointed out the difference in how poor black people and poor white people are portrayed in the media. The majority of the people in the country are still white, and more importantly the majority of people with money, who are going to be paying the taxes to fix this sort of system. Making people feel like they are helping an in-group is more productive than making them feel like they’re taking pity on outsiders. Emphasizing the racial nature of poverty is only going to encourage the second of those.

By: Bill R

Bill R — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:13:00 +0000

Don’t think so; which statement misses which point?

By: Kali

Kali — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:29:00 +0000

Then your statement is missing the point.

By: Kali

Kali — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:24:00 +0000

Does noting its racial aspects, in addition to the class aspects, make it less serious, less worthy of being addressed? Does noting the racial aspects take something away from the class-based moral calculus?

By: pduggie

pduggie — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:34:00 +0000

if systemic inequality is actually functioning without any individually biased people, calling it ‘racism’ undermines that definitionally. Some will hear you say

1) there is inequality in schools, manifesting itself in racial disparity

2) This is not the result of anyone bearing ill-will towards a race qua race

and wonder how 1+2 = racism. Since for racism to exist, in the popular mind, you need someone bearing ill-will.

So that’s one problem

another one is that certain kinds of systemic disparities, if they are not the result of ill-will on anyone’s part, seem innocuous. (exception would be the material disparities of wealth and poverty, clearly.)

microbiology phds are overwhelmingly female
philosophy phds are overwhelmingly male.

you could call that “systemic sexism” but, what if everyone is happy being a microbiologist or philosopher. What needs to change? Do we need interventions?

By: Bill R

Bill R — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:21:00 +0000

“I am not buying that most inequality in this country is a natural consequence of supply and demand, and that there is equality of opportunity, because it isn’t true.”

I agree. America still attracts people from many countries because of the comparative opportunity offered, but we’ve got work to do on it for sure.

By: Bill R

Bill R — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:22:00 +0000

“Are you seriously arguing that we are living in a perfectly meritocratic society?”

Nope. Didn’t say it and don’t believe it.

By: Lunad

Lunad — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:52:00 +0000

I’m sorry. I am not buying that most inequality in this country is a natural consequence of supply and demand, and that there is equality of opportunity, because it isn’t true. If a difference in experience, and how much people demand, were the only things that were driving inequality, that would be a individual inequality, not group inequality. The real question is why there is a shortage of people able to be competent bankers, given that it pays so well. Is it a true shortage, or are there multiple barriers keeping people from getting the necessary qualifications (high education costs, required unpaid internships, discriminatory hiring, etc), which keep the pool of applicants low?

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:43:00 +0000

Thing is… there are actually more poor white people than poor black people in this country. And they are similarly geographically isolated (although generally in less dense areas). Doesn’t this hurt poor people pretty universally? The fact that the people in nice neighborhoods are white doesn’t really help the kid in the hills of West Viriginia get a better education.

I guess, it’s perfectly justifiable as bad by being classist. Why bring race into it?

Discriminatory renting lending and rental policies, zoning, and white flight are all racist policies. Localized school funding is a classist policy that screws over all poor people regardless of race.