This is the worst of sociology. Basically a coral reef of ideology constructed on its own interlocking set of intellectual constructs divorced from actual data. For example, need it be pointed out that there is no statistical evidence that whites are more violent than other groups. And if you got out more and lived among other cultures (and studied actual data!) you'd find out that white males ain't the only ones that feed on violence.

In my part of the world there's a sociology of violent extremism out there waiting for understanding (we have only scratched the surface). This ideology feeds on the idea of manhood rooted in killing, brutality and domination which - surprise - has nothing to do with being white. Nor, I hasten to add, does not boil down simplistically to religion, that other bugaboo of pseudo-intellectualism. There is something deeper in the structure of males and females (we're not from mars and venus, we're both earthlings after all!) that I suspect is related from the time we were tribes and small bands of hunter-gatherers. Our living conditions have changed dramatically but basic evolutionary drives haven't caught up. Anyway, it's just a notion I toss around and try to think of how to measure. Point being: We haven't begun to scratch the surface of understanding this but its very existence disproves this weird little corner of the interWebZ.

But one way not to understand this kind phenomenon - or even violence that is sometimes carried by white males (again, at no higher rate than any other males - and in the US, actually at a lower rate than some other groups but that's probably mostly related to SES) ... okay digression. One way not to understand is to waste your life memorizing and defending poorly defined self-contained interlocking intellectual cults and this is what this little segment of the discipline of we call more broadly sociology has become. So regardless of race, gender or creed, if you want to better appreciate the complexity of the world rather than simply reflect back the intellectual self images of your Id, your myopic predilections and prejudices, learn the scientific method of incremental knowledge by discovering bit by bit what is not supported by evidence.

What do I mean exactly? When you go to grad school find a program that works with data. At least if you don't get a job in sociology per se you will still be able to find work and make your life meaningful. People like the PhD running this site may neglect to inform you of this unpleasant fact: if you don't and you fall short you have very few life options left because you'll have no skills. And if you succeed in the larger data analysis branch of the field you will do work that is meaningful albeit less arrogant in its truth claims. We say in our modest approach to understanding: if my theory that x is true what would I not expect to see? Then we go out and try to find that which disproves what we believe. We make our data and arguments explicit, using mathematical notation to precisely formulate our underlying causal assumptions in ways that can be operationalized and disproven. It's a modest intellectual life that works towards truth through negation but one far more true to Hannah Arendt's life of the mind. Engaging this you will better understand your the relationship of your mind with that of the world: profound ignorance. Yet as Pascal says: It is a wise ignorance that knows itself. The rest of the people (including some people with PhDs, apparently) get a smattering of knowledge and flatter themselves that they understand it all. They write silly things like much of this website. These people mess the world up and get nearly everything wrong. They give social sciences a bad name which is what so pisses me off! They also exploit society by creating little academic castles of rarefied theory that justify their salaries. They extract rent from the rest of society yet construct theories that allow themselves to feel good while doing so. Hey, I guess it's a grand old living. But it comes the expense of higher tuition to pay for nonsense that is socially divisive and doesn't help us understand the world any better. I prefer the excitement of knowing I am actually contributing in my small little way to knowledge by learning languages, data analysis and being intellectually modest. Well, most of the time. When I see garbage like this passing as knowledge it makes me feel righteous indignation. But for any grad students reading this there is a better way. You can be a feminist - I know plenty - but you can contribute to knowledge in a more honest, rigorous way elsewhere. Bon courage!