This site brings the funny! Recent topics on Stuff White People Like:
- #73 Gentrification
- #72 Study Abroad
- #71 Being the only white person around
- #70 Difficult Breakups
- #69 Mos Def
- #68 Michel Gondry
- #67 Standing Still at Concerts
- #66 Divorce
- #65 Co-Ed Sports
- #64 Recycling
- #63 Expensive Sandwiches
- #62 Knowing what’s best for poor people
- #61 Bicycles
- #60 Toyota Prius
- #59 Natural Medicine
For more information, please click here.
Tags: blogging, funny, generalizations, white people
I was told about this while visiting Michigan State. I love it!!! I’m bummed I didn’t get to tell you about it yet, though. I think white people also like to be the first to tell others about the cool things they discover.
I think the site is hilarious. It’s very subversive and satirical. Those things aren’t things all white people like. More like, “Stuff Coastal Yuppies Like.” But that’s the funny part. Folks who don’t get it are all up in arms in the comments because, “You’re stereotyping white people!!” I think the point of the blog is to demonstrate to white people what it’s like to be pigeonholed the way blacks are. White people tend to have specific ideas about “what black people like.” It’s sort of mocking those stereotypes and turning it around.
[note: I did identify with a lot of the stuff mentioned, heh heh]
I preface this by saying that I do NOT take any offense to this. I just cannot get past the hypocrisy here! I guess it is ok to make satirical jokes about white people. What would happen on this site if someone came across a satirical site about “Stuff Black People Like.” Eric’s hosting servers would peg and this place would go into meltdown mode.
That being said, I enjoy humor that takes jabs at white people. Have you ever heard Russell Peters, the Indian comic? Be warned, he makes fun of all races and ethnicities, not just Indians and whites. But I have found myself saying “I wish he would make more fun of white people! It is funny!” The key is to NOT have a thin skin about that stuff.
[…] Let’s continue: What does it mean to be white? Or, perhaps, is this blog an accurate picture of whiteness? SarahMC left a comment on Eric Stoller’s blog stating that perhaps this would be more aptly titled, “Stuff Coastal Yuppies Like.” Commenters on Racialicious echo similar sentiments: this blog is more about class than whiteness. Certainly, by focusing on whiteness, the author obfuscates issue of class: This is not white behavior he is mocking, but a certain, contextual (though rather extensive) white behavior. This is not the behavior of my parents, a farming couple in rural Iowa. The behavior being lampooned is that of somewhat socially conscious middle class people, probably largely white. One comment on Racialicious asks: What do other[s] think about this constant equating of ‘white’ with ‘young, middle-class, trendy, urbanite’? I don’t think this is unique to the SWPL website. […]
[…] For instance, I was disappointed when I learned about stuffwhitepeoplelike from some friends at Michigan State, and before I could tell anyone here at Oregon State, a friend beat me to sharing it on his blog. Bummer. […]
Well, that ever-more-popular site is fun, but it raises a question for me: why do whites only address whiteness, or listen attentively to other people who address it, when it’s being addressed in humorous terms? Why can’t whites seem to engage in a sustained, more serious discussion about their racial group?
Macon, perhaps it because when there is a “serious discussion,” it seems to be a gang-up on white people. Apparently, the only group against which it is acceptable to leverage accusatory comments for every wrong in the history of mankind is white people. Many of these accusations ring so hollow (see many of the points made here on Eric’s blog), why bother to listen?
Macon, I think your point is very important. I almost never hear whiteness discussed as a group and construction in serious ways. This only seems to happen if a person of color brings it up.
FB, I can hardly imagine a gang-up on white people. It seems to me that a group of people control most of the discourse in a society, control most of the resources, and have the largest representation in most bodies of power (gov’t, church, academia, business, and so forth), that it’s hard to gang-up against that group. I think there is a vast difference between asking critical questions (what does it mean to be white? how was whiteness constructed? what is made invisible to white people? what privileges are granted to white people that are inaccessible to most people of color?) and ganging up on a group. Also, waxing hyperbolic about this “gang-up” (”every wrong in the history of mankind”) serves merely to dismiss everything that’s been said about the real injustices created by a raced/classed society.
Perhaps it would also be important here to note that the “history of mankind” also erases those who are not men: perhaps the “history of humanity” or “history of people” would be a more accurate representation of all involved.
Why bother to listen? Because when someone says they are harmed, I think it’s important to listen.
[blockquote]Perhaps it would also be important here to note that the “history of mankind” also erases those who are not men: perhaps the “history of humanity” or “history of people” would be a more accurate representation of all involved.[/blockquote]
I am expected to engage in “serious” discussion when frivolous points based on PC semantics come into play? If this is the level of discourse I can expect where innocuous terminology is transformed into “[erasing] those who are not men,” I assure you that I have no interest in even considering whether I should engage in any “serious” discussion.
FB, I am sorry that you see my call to attention of language here as “PC.” I do not see it as “PC” In my experience, political correctness obfuscates truth, such as “strategic redeployment,” which actually means “withdrawal of troops.” I do not mean to obfuscate truth, but rather use terms that are more accurate and more inclusive.
Calling attention to this language is important in order to (begin to) correct the exclusion of women from history. This word might be innocuous if it could stand alone in isolation, but it works in relation to other words and to our social and historical context (as do all words). I think being accurate and inclusive with our words is important, or we will never change the world in which we engage and live.
I find it unfortunate that you think that calling attention to word choice and the history and political ramifications behind those choices is “frivolous.”
I am also sad, and a bit outraged, that you would, instead of addressing my major points that addressed your question, dismiss the entire dialogue altogether based on a comment I made about your (and more importantly our society’s) word choices. My attention to word choice isn’t about frivolity. It is about how we construct and view the world. Language isn’t some objective way to describe the world; it also creates the world we live in. That is why it is so important to draw attention to it.
From the perspective of someone with a BA in Philosophy and an interest in language, I agree with Michael. Word choice is important, and in the case of terms like “mankind,” given that such terms came into use in a period in which women were literally not considered people, I think it’s very much important to be as accurate as possible - if for no other reason than that when having dialogues and discussions around important issues like whiteness, the fewer barrier to communication we have, the better (i.e. we need to have common definitions for commonly used words in order to mitigate potential misunderstandings).
If that made any sense.
I am also sad, and a bit outraged, that you would, instead of addressing my major points that addressed your question, dismiss the entire dialogue altogether based on a comment I made about your (and more importantly our society’s) word choices. My attention to word choice isn’t about frivolity. It is about how we construct and view the world. Language isn’t some objective way to describe the world; it also creates the world we live in. That is why it is so important to draw attention to it.
If you are saddened that I did not engage in discussion, then make me think it is serious. I am not going to waste my time nitpicking a choice of words that either a.) you knew very well was meant in a commonly used, generic sense or b.) is based in such a hyper-brand of political correctness, that I can tell upfront that further discussion would be unmerited.
You say that say that PC “obfuscates truth.” I would suggest that that is precisely what your nitpicking of words that were quite clearly NOT meant in any type of sexist manner. Before any substantive discussion had even begun, you had distracted from such by creating a point of contention where there was none by implying a sexist context where none existed.
So please tell me, is this what comprises a part of “serious discussion?” Because if so, I will leave the nitpicking of words and creation of controversy where there is none to those that subscribe either consciously or unconsciously to such political correctness.
Dennis (and this would apply to Michael as well),
Are you sincerely telling me that you were unclear as to what part of humankind to which I was referring? Am I to believe that your interpretation was really uncertain as to my meaning due to an inaccuracy? Sorry, but as someone with a college degree, I simply refuse to believe that you really have that much trouble with reading in context.
FB, I cannot make you take anything seriously. That is your choice, and not mine.
I did not once state that you meant to be sexist. I was not discussing intention at all. I was discussing the effects of such language. By drawing attention to this word choice, I did not create a contention — I drew attention to a contention that was already there: that this word has a history and a use that we have to be aware of, and that we should (ethically, I believe) correct.
I believe that if we can’t have a discussion on the language we use, that we can never actually reach common ground. I cannot help it if you view discussing language as a distraction from the discussion. You state that I distracted from the discussion before it had begun; I view this as hardly true, as I had added this comment on “mankind” because I viewed it as important, and added it after the discussion had begun, after you had posed questions and I had offered a beginning to a possible answer.
It seems from your last comment, regarding meaning and context, that you view language as something more concrete and based on intentions than I do. I had assumed that you had intended “humanity” more so than just “men.” I went on that assumption and offered a better word, and my reasons why it is a better word: the effects of the word you chose. I would rather focus on the effects of words because that is how they function and create meaning.
I do not believe that calling attention to this word obfuscates truth. The truth of the matter is that this word has been used historically to marginalize women, and that it really a shitty word. Why not say that other words are more accurate for certain reasons (effects, not intentions)?
Derek,
Thanks for the phrase “creating a point of contention where there was none.” It’s a great illustration of how individuals can be completely unaware of existing contentions and conflicts on an issue and what happens when said individuals are exposed to them.
For example, civil rights activists like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were vilified greatly for “creating a point of contention where there was none” in the late 1950s and early 1960s for talking about racial inequalities in America.
Similarly, feminists have always been attacked for “causing” strife and disagreement over things that “everyone” had previously agreed on - including things that many people now take for granted, such as women being in the workplace or in higher education.
The shorter version: Just because one person doesn’t seen conflict doesn’t mean there is none. Often, our privileges (especially as white men) serve to blind us to the conflicts that are readily apparent to others.
Let me get this straight, Dennis. Did you just really compare me using “manking” in a generic fashion to the protests against civil rights abuses by Rosa Parks and MLK as well as women seeking to enter the workplace and higher education? You guys do more to prove my point than any long winded explanation I could give.
Michael wrote, “Macon, I think your point is very important. I almost never hear whiteness discussed as a group and construction in serious ways. This only seems to happen if a person of color brings it up.”
Thank you, Michael, glad you found my point important. You’re most welcome to consider my further elaborations of that point about whiteness, and others about it, at my blog on the topic, where I’m trying to take whiteness seriously:
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/
Hope to see you there. and I certainly look forward to coming back here.
Derek,
I think it’s fair to say you missed - or at least chose not to engage with - the point.
I’m not comparing one single use of sexist language the entirety of the civil rights or feminist movements. That would indeed be silly. I’m comparing one specific facet of many social struggles - gaining recognition from the dominant (white, male) majority that a specific problem or set of problems exist - to a comment you made that is a perfect example of said facet.
Does that help?
Two responses:
You seem to imply that I made a sexist comment when you say: “one single use of sexist language.” Also, it was mentioned about intent not playing a role but it does. As I debated extensively on the “blackface” debate about the OSU students simply supporting their football team, intent is important. When someone does not intend to be sexist, racist, etc. and someone else takes something that is clearly NOT an overt sexist or racist comment, then the imparting of sexist or racist context is more the responsibility of the person who finds meaning where none is present. Granted, there are words and phrases, primarily slurs, where common sense would preclude their use and any subsequent criticism is founded. But, to suggest that someone used a sexist of racist term when that term is more the result of the opposite party’s interpretation than the meaning given when the statement was made, is inaccurate and unfair.
In this case, even suggesting the use of “mankind” is sexist does not even receive support from the definition of sexism:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Thus, I must conclude that any such interpretation is not about identifying obscure meaning, but rather about placing mean where there is none, primarily as the result of one’s personal point of view. It is highly unfounded to attempt to extrapolate your personal point of view to apply to all such uses for a word or phrase in question.
For this reason, you will be waiting a long time for the following when it comes to trivial and, I would suggest, innocuous and meaningless uses of languages such as my comment:
gaining recognition from the dominant (white, male) majority that a specific problem or set of problems exist - to a comment you made that is a perfect example of said facet.
I will be more than willing to highlight and speak against actually discrimination, but I will not sit idly by as those with fringe interpretations attempt to passively indict the broader society using their hyper-sensitive interpretation of common, everyday events.
Here’s a really funny knockoff:
http://stuffwhiteparentslike.com