Talk:White male

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White male article.
Article policies
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article White male, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Brendel User:Skotte
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Racist?

Is this a serious article? it looks like a bunch of subjective, racist vandalism to me. 12.218.145.112 02:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The term is used by sociologists to refer to the least discriminated group in the nation-see the reference section. I seriously doubt that "a bunch of subjective, racist vandalism" would have such references. The article explains the term very well-read it. Also, yes as this article deals with racial aspects of American society it exposes racism. If you would like you can see other articles written and maintained by myself-I assure you that I do not author "racist vandalism." Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about this general topic. The article obviously isn't racist. It's pretty interesting, actually (I was in a debate with someone, and this article offered a lot of exactly the kind of information I was seeking). However this article may or may not be organized in a way such that it is received kindly. I would be interested in seeing some discussion of equality efforts made by other groups. Women's rights, Racial equality, that sort of thing. Not to bog the article down, or pull away fFrom the current article's strengths, but some offering counter fFacts or links might be useful. Good article, overall. Certainly a good start, anyway. Skotte 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article has got to be kidding

This article is so blatantly skewed that it's ridiculous. If white males enjoy so much ease and comfort, sailing through life, why do they have highest rate of suicide? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00000561.htm Quote:

The age-adjusted suicide rate for whites (12.1) was almost twice that for blacks and other races (6.7). White males consistently had the highest suicide rates, with black and other males the second highest, followed by white females and black and other females. In terms of absolute numbers of suicides committed in the United States in 1980, 70% were among white males; 22%, among white females; 6%, among black and other males; and 2%, among black and other females.

End Quote.

Granted that this is an older study (1970-80), but it is still the case currently. If this article was fair it would report this side of the White Male phenomena.

Here are some newer numbers from 2004. Out of 32,500 suicides, 23,000 were committed by white males- 70%. Since white males make up about 1/3 of the population, the suicide rate of white males will be around twice that of every other group combined.

This article makes it sound like being white and male makes life all daises and roses. I'm just saying that there is a lot of evidence to the contrary and this article ought to reflect that.

link: http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004datapgv1.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricyteach (talk • contribs) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Nowhere is this article suggesting that "white males enjoy so much ease and comfort, sailing through life". This article does not say that White males are happier than others, it merely states that they face the least socio-economic discrimination. Whether or not that makes them happy is another thing! This article is not "mak[ing] it sound like being white and male makes life all daises and roses." Where does it do that? Again it does not talk about happiness, does it? It says White males, such as myself, are merely less likely to face discrimination and have the highest median income levels and best chances at getting elected into public office. Whether or not White males are happy and statisfied is a completely different subject. Suicide rates are an interesting topic but completely unrelated to this article's subject metter. If you want though, you can create an article about "suicide in the United States." Or you could, if you have sufficient references, add a section about how facing the least discrimination isn't making white males happier. Signaturebrendel 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Women are acutally more likely to attempt suicide than men, but they chose methods such as ODing or cutting their wrists, while men tend to stick a knife in their chest or shot tehmselves. Males are less likely to attempt suicide then women but are more successful in their attempts. Signaturebrendel
Adding to what Brendel said: There are many whites who do not like the idea of white privilege. Sociologists will agree, members of any dominant social group do not get to choose how they are treated, and may get no particular joy out of their lot in life. We have a tendency to think only of women when we talk about gender, and minorities when we talk about race. However it is very important to realize the impact the majority has on a system as a solid body. In nearly every single school shooting, the violent youth is a white male. But we rarely see anyone actually discussing the male condition. Why? Why are we so reluctant to talk about men being in control? It's an absolutely undeniable fact. Why does every criticism of this article begin with rhetorical name calling? I can understand the fFeminist perspective is uncomfortable with admitting men run the world. Speaking as a fFeminist myself, however, I assure you it is more constructive to recognize the situation and THEN begin to investigate ways to alter it. I will certainly agree the article could be fleshed out more to outline the male condition, touching on such topics as aggressive behavior, or depression. in fFact I suppose I could start that now. Skotte 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding some info about the problems of alcoholism and anger that should help make it seem less like "White Christian males" are just having an easy time. Racism effects both the oppressed and the oppressors in negative ways. It's bad for society as a whole. futurebird 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section:Violence, alcoholism and agression

Why was this deleted? futurebird 13:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violence, alcoholism and agression

Author and activist Jackson Katz observes, the white male has such popular role models as John Wayne to look to for a guiding "Tough Guy" ideal. [1] David Savran writes that events like the Oklahoma City bombing may be expressions of white male agression:

Assorted conspiracy theorists, antitax protesters, and apocalyptic millennialists hole up in Idaho, Montana, or Texas awaiting either the end of the world or the FBI. And although these different phenomena are not routinely considered by the press to be symptoms of the white male backlash, I believe they all represent an attempt on the part of white men to recoup the losses they have allegedly suffered at the hands of those women and persons of color who, in fact, have had to pay for the economic and social prosperity that white men have historically enjoyed. [2]

In their study Insult, Aggression, and the Southern Culture of Honor: An “Experimental Ethnography” Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett found that Southern white males (who are often more religious) follow norms characteristic of a “culture of honor.” This results in higher aggression compared to white northerners. In 3 experiments, they were insulted by a man who bumped into the participant and called him an “asshole.” Compared with northerners—who were relatively unaffected by the insult—southerners were

  • more likely to think their masculine reputation was threatened
  • more upset (as shown by a rise in cortisol levels)
  • more physiologically primed for aggression (as shown by a rise in testosterone levels)
  • more cognitively primed for aggression
  • more likely to engage in aggressive and dominant behavior.

Findings highlight the insult–aggression cycle in cultures of honor for this ethnic group. Insults diminish a man's reputation and he tries to restore his status by aggressive or violent behavior.[3]

Unusually heavy drinking by young white men has been a pattern in the US for nearly 30 years. However, in recent years this trend has decreased from 32 percent to only 16 percent of the 18-29 age group. While heavy drinking declined the number of alcohol-related problems did not. Problems such as belligerence, accidents, sense of control over drinking, work and health related problems and problems with the police, spouse and others remained at a steady level over the past decade for both whites and blacks.[4] Affluent White men report greater numbers of drinking consequences and total drinking problems than affluent Black men. The reverse is true for poor Black and White men.[5]

The studies you cited differentiate between Northern and Southern white males, black, white and Asian males, but not between Christian and non-Christian white males. Can you provide a specific study? You are aware that with an article like this you are paving the way for similar articles analyzing the level of violence, alcoholism, crime rates, drug abuse and agression of other ethnicities (for instance black men/black women), are you? SecurID 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern whites are also generally noticably poorer as a whole than in the rest of the nation, that cannot be overlooked.Gtbob12 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.193.31 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic

This graphic was removed too, why? futurebird 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In 2005, non-Hispanic White men over the age of 25 had the highest median income of any other demographic group in the United States of America, among those with earnings.
In 2005, non-Hispanic White men over the age of 25 had the highest median income of any other demographic group in the United States of America, among those with earnings.[6]

And how many of them are Christians?SecurID 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority, over 75%-but this is quite irrelevant. The graph illustrates the income difference between White males and other demographics (incld. White females) something that perfectly fits into this article. Signaturebrendel 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Graphics with a 25% margin of error should not be displayed on any wiki. Rbaish 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that figure?! The data comes straight from the US Census Bureau! If you have a problem with it, mail the US Department of Commerce- they published this data in the 2005 Economic Survey. It is the best data available, directly from the US government. Signaturebrendel 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about "white christian males", not "white males"! Unspecific "White male" figures are irrelevant for this article. Please provide information and sources directly related to the topic (white christian males compared to other males). Anything else is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for original research. SecurID 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The graph illustrates the difference between White males and the rest of the population- it clearly shows how White males are the least discriminated against group in this country when it comes to income. White Christian males narrows it down even further to an even less disrciminated group and is the title of this article becuase it is the term socioligist like to use. Signaturebrendel 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A similar idea applies to the studies in the section that was deleted. futurebird 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whites and WCM differ in gender and religion. The given statistics and title do not match. Sorry. Rbaish 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

White males differ in gender from white christian males???? Of course the stats match. If you have a problem with the stats I can easily change the article title to just White males. That term is also used by sociologists to describe the most dominant demographic in the US-though less commonly than White Christian male which is more precise. But seeing it as this article is mainly about America's most politically dominant demographic I can change the title to White males. Also remember the 3R rule, Rbaish. Signaturebrendel 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The name change is a good idea. futurebird 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and change it to "White males in the United States" to make sure that we are talking about a US-specific concept. Signaturebrendel 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see you changed it already ;-) Looks good. Signaturebrendel 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chances section

The section should remove all of this oracular stuff about "chances" in life. The section is POV because it accepts the questionable claim that ethnicity & gender determine your "chances" in life. The "chances" appear to be based on current information. It is quite a stretch. I propose that the "chances" aspect be removed, and that the article simply discuss white male prosperity/success relative to other groups. This way, most of the 'real' information is retained, but the quaint 'chances' speculation is removed. The Behnam 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They determine part of your life chances. All claims are backed-up by college textbooks. If you think the section is one sided, add info stating to the contrary. Signaturebrendel 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll look for some contrary cites sometime. What kind of textbooks are these anyway, lib textbooks? But honestly, where are these textbooks in the citations? It appears to go back to just one. Most of the section's information (census data, csm article) doesn't come from sources that talk about 'chances', but the information is being used to advance the 'chances' notion. This is unacceptable. The Behnam 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Most college textbooks will tell you that White males face less discrimination (no marble/glass ceiling) and are more likely to get hired/promoted than non-white canidates w/ the same qualifications for a given position. In other words, white males face less resistance on their way up than others of the same socio-economic status. While socio-economic status trumps race/gender in determining life chances, a working class Euro-American male will face less resistance when moving up into the middle class than a highly similar Hispanic male. That is why we talk about increased life chances. The textbooks arn't left-wing propaganda-they're published by Pearson, one of the -if not outright the- biggest publisher of college-level textbooks in this nation. Census date is used to further illustrate what is said in the textbook sources-there is nothing unacceptable here. As of now, this article is perfectly sound. If you have some concrete suggestion, however, let me know so we can discuss improvements (we can always change section titles or re-arragned parts of the article w/o losing any essential info IMHO). Thanks, Signaturebrendel 06:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that there is data supporting claims that white males both in the past and present have an easier time with these things, but is this textbook (or as you say, these 'textbooks') asserting that this actually dictates life 'chances'? It struck me because it seems rather poor scholarship to take current and past societal trends & assert them as actual 'probabilities' of success in this oracular fashion. Of course, some of those kind of fields, like 'social work', are pretty much inherently liberal, so maybe that kind of illogic gets by. In any case, much of the data used in the section doesn't actually call itself 'chances' but is being used as such; this sort of synthesis is out of line with WP policies. The section should be changed to simply "Prosperity" and the mention of 'chances' should be removed. The Behnam 06:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not opposed to changing the section title, so long as the info needed is there. For the time being I change it to Prosperity as that seems to be good-enough title. No one is saying that this dictates life chances. But by not facing discrimination, life chances for white males increase. Facing less resistance on you're way up means you're more likely to get there if you apply yourself. Of course, this doesn't mean that White males are autonomatically better off, born with a passport to a life of reily- it merely means that -in general- they face less resistance when they attempt to climb the socio-economic ladder. FYI: There are two textbooks used in this article and sociology (incld. ethnic studies) is not "social work!" ;-) Signaturebrendel 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Never said they were the same, just using it as an example of a liberal field. Social work is so broad it can barely be described as a discipline anyway. Based on the 'chances' doctrine, sociology would also seem liberal, but I'm not actually sure how much the doctrine is part of the field; this page could just be wrong. The 'chances' notion is the problem with the article that I am trying to address. It is good that the title is changed but its use in the text is still problematic, especially the overarching way it applies itself to the data provided. The Behnam 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence, stating that white males have better economic life chances is valid. It was published in a widely used college textbook and that is quite frankly all that's needed for a WP entry. If you disagree with sociologists and some of the most widely used college textbooks in this country than perhaps you should reconsider. Conservatives like to label sociologists and many social scientists (incld. economists) as "lefty" but that has little to do with this article (And whoever said that there is something wrong with citing liberal sources?! We let the connies cite their Heritage Foundation, don't we? A liberal vantage point is as good as any and there is no rule against using "liber" sources-espcially if they are in the form of America's most commonly sold college textbooks). Sociology textbook are the best authority we have on contemporary society (It is the sceince of studying society- remeber the social science building(s) at the college you attended? ;-)) and taking a statement from a social science textbook is certainly acceptable. Signaturebrendel 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I hope I'm not nit-picking, but...

With regards to the following sentence:

"Certain sub-demographics such as homosexual White Christian males and those of Middle Eastern ancestry (who are legally white in the USA) as well as those Latino descent still face some discrimination."

This makes it sound as though white men can never face any sort of discrimination unless they fall within one of these categories, which is patently ridiculous. Affirmative action is an example I can think of that some regard as discriminatory; indeed, here in Ireland, it's called "positive discrimination". Perhaps it could be amended to say that "Certain sub-demographics....can often face more discrimination", or "an increased amount of discrimination", or some-such?

"Discrimination" isn't really such a good word, but I can't think of anything better at present. After all, if a man earns more because society expects him to provide for his family, and a women earns less because societal pressures means she stays at home or only works part-time, it seems just as "discriminatory" towards the man as the women. The article also seems to take it for granted that making lots of money or holding a position of power is an "enhanced life chance". I know many men who would love to stay at home raising the kids, and certainly wouldn't regard one of the most important jobs in the world as a "diminished life chance". Too much is taken for granted in this article, and its contributors need to take into consideration what they are tacitly saying when selecting certain words.

Also, it has just struck me that if only a third of US citizens are white males, a reader might be confused as to how male privilege accounts for their increased representation in politics, when two thirds of the voters (i.e. the majority who elected them) are not white males. This could be explained better. Martin 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does not say white males never face any sort of discrimination, clearly poor white males suffer the consequnces of being poor, etc... But overall, in general, white males face less discrimination and therefore face higher Economic life chances than most other groups. Also, you make an instersting point that our society does disrciminate against males by not letting them stay at home w/ children. In the US men are often not even trusted as Kindergarten teachers. These issues should definitely be incorporated into this article but haven't been yet. For the time being I tweaked the wording to be more accurate and make it clear that "life chances" only pertains to economic fortune in this article. Signaturebrendel 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article then be called "wealthy white males," since they, and not poor white males, dominate the overclass. 72.161.254.92 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article talks about the least discriminated against segment of the US population. Even though most white males are not wealthy, it is -in general- easier for them to rise to the top. Signaturebrendel 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positive Discrimination?

I'm European, but I always thought that the phrase is sometimes discriminatory. This isn't mentioned. For example, during the recent Virginia Tech shooting, a British news channel refered to the college as a mainly white institiution (I can't rememeber the exact phrase but it stuck in my head). In the context of the sentence, that was made out to be a bad thing, or something to be ashamed of. I'm not too sure what the Virginia demographic is, but would a "mainly Native American" or "mainly Hispanic" be used in the same context? Everytime 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Mainly white, black, asian, etc... just means that the majority of a given population were recognized and/or self-identified as members of such a racial group. You can make such demographic data sets out to be a bad or a good thing, depending on the message you are trying to convey. Signaturebrendel 01:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of commentary

So much for diversity of viewpoints. This censorship will not stand. Brendel, you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes civil or uncivil rants. Your specious claims have been called to the carpet, particularly your claim about income as a proxy for discrimination. Instead of committing the sin of arbitrary censorship, let the challenges stand, or even better, defend them. This is a democratic institution, not a dictatorship, and diverse views are welcome here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.110.129 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia's talk pages are not the apropriate place for people around the web to air their greivances. If you have a sociological hypothesis of your own, that's fine. Once you get that hypothesis published in a journal we can talk about including in the article. This page, however, is not a discussion board or blog. If you have suggestion on how to improve the article that is based on reputable sources (college textbooks preferably) then your use of this page would be appropriate. Simply using talk pages for your own personal commentary and opinion as well as adding the term "liberal winies" into the article is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Again, this is not a discussion board or a blog. These opinion pieces are out of place on a wikipedia talk page and belong in blog. Please see WP:NOT BTW: Wikiepdia is not a democracy and not a dictatorship either-please aquaint yourself with the policies of this instution a bit better. Signaturebrendel 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding my recent edits (as an unregistered user in Sept 07)to the White male page:

Please look at the original article for white male, which was clearly Non-neutral POV. What I added was not a biased view. Examine the pages for other groups- african american, etc. These are written to reflect achievements of the group, without a negative depiction. The page for white male that was originally in place is blatantly a liberal non-neutral POV, it lacks facts about any achievements whatsoever (which are the prominent feature for all other group pages) and it lists statements such as denying discrimination against white men which are at best speculative, and at worst, bigoted. If Wikipedia is uninterested in facts, then I would ask that at least white men be treated with equal respect from a humanistic POV as has been carried out for the pages of all other groups of peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We're very interested in facts. But uncited content will be removed, as there is no way to verify what you say is true. And besides the achievements, though the general gist of what you say may be true, the way you put it is highly POV'd. Gscshoyru 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Discussion Page on Wiki

Thank you for your interpretation of Wiki discussion pages. While you are entilted to your own personal interpretation, please note that references to publications are ~not~ a requirement for sharing one's viewpoint on Wiki discussion pages. Moreover, discussion of viewpoints, as long as they are not personal attacks or threats, qualify for entry as a discussion topic. While you may disagree with what has been stated here, you no more have the right to remove my discussion viewpoints that I do yours. Please respect our multicultrual view composed of diverse views. And, for the record, I have over 30 peer-reviewed publications, one book, and also hold several editorial review board positions. If you continue to delete my viewpoints on the discussion board, you will be reported to the approrpriate Wiki authorities.

Really? Please point out your publications; they may be eligible for use as sources on this page, assuming you have written about this topic. You can use email if you want. The Behnam 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is NOT a dicussion board! I said it above, Wikipedia talk pages are there to discuss actual changes to articles, they are not discussion boards for "sharing one's viewpoints" on the subject. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. These pages are not the appropriate venue for the posting of op-ed pieces. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the header for this tab. This is a discussion forum to question your statements. They have been questioned and they are still being questioned. This is not a forum where you can arbitrarily remove criticisms and concerns of your submissions, particularly when they have not been properly or adequately referenced. I will continue to post my concerns here until you have properly documented you work. Later, when I have more time, I will dissect each entry that is not documented to share with you my concerns. Until then, I would kindly ask you to behave and stop removing my contributions to the discussion page.
These arn't my statements in the article. I am citing a theory already formulated and published by sociologists. If you have source that make statements contradictory to those made by my sources feel free to add information from them. There is no problem with a Wikipedia article featuring two completely opposite viewpoints-so long as both viewpoints are cited through sources that meet WP standards (college textbooks are seens as the most preferable source on Wikipedia). Below you are critizing the article's subject matter and it's source which isn't constructive in trying to build an article-but since you seems so convinced that you are helping to build this article I will leave in the comments. You still, however, seem to be misguided in your understanding of "discussion page." On a discussion page you discuss edits to the article, not your viewpoints on the subject matter and why you disagree with an article's sources. I know Wikipedia policy pretty darn well and talk pages are not a dicussion boards or forums; they are not intended for op-ed pices. I still suggest you take a look at Wikipedia policy. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal comments by anon-ip

The sections below are most likely in violation of Wikipedia's talk page policy but are kept due to the concerns for their author. Signaturebrendel 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Discussion Page on Wiki

Thank you for your interpretation of Wiki discussion pages. While you are entilted to your own personal interpretation, please note that references to publications are ~not~ a requirement for sharing one's viewpoint on Wiki. Moreover, discussion of viewpoints, as long as they are not personal attacks or threats, qualify for entry as a discussion topic. While you may disagree with what has been stated here, you no more have the right to remove my discussion viewpoints that I do yours. And, for the record, I have over 30 peer-reviewed publications, one book, and also hold several editorial review board positions. If you continue to delete my viewpoints on the discussion board, you will be reported to the appropriate Wiki authorities.

[edit] Discussion Page is not Subject to References

Thank you for your input on having my hypothesis published in Wiki. Once it is published, I will be sure to have entered in the main page. Until then, my refutation of your hypothesis remains where it belongs: on the discussion page. And, honestly, a text-book hardly constitutes a legitimate and tracable reference. Sitting on several learned editorial review boards, I never allow a text book to support a conjecture of any type. Text books serve as a reference only for well-established facts and methods, e.g. providing a reference to a table of integtrals.

[edit] The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Relativism

Quoting from above "... it clearly shows how White males are the least discriminated against group in this country when it comes to income," signed by brendel one immediately notes that the underlying assumptions in this absurd claim are that 1. income is a proxy for discrimination, and 2. that even if income were a proxy, there is no a priori reason incomes should be equal over ethnological and racial cross-sections. To claim this difference is due to these and then to further claim whites as a group are least discriminated is patently false and absurd. Cultural relativism is as unsupportable as religion within the context of the scientific method. As the absurd claims made in the present page are rooted in relativism, any reasonable person would be as skeptical of the conclusions as they would be of seeing Jesus walk on water.

[edit] Enhanced Life Chances

Sliding further down the slope of extremist relativism, the entire premise of 'enhanced life chances' presupposes that all humans are equal in ability and to the extent they are under-represented is due to latent discrimination. Using useless, yet easily measurable terms such as sexual orientation, the extreme left continues to define the world in terms that have little to do with achievement. In particular, it's interesting to note how the supremacy of the white male theory utterly fails when looking at Asian men: what happened to all that privilege? Sexual orientation in principle should have zero to do with achievement, which is primarily due to the intellectual make-up and cultural norms the subject has been exposed to. That the majority of Nobel Prize winners are Jew is not some deep-rooted conspiracy in the Nobel awards committee: it is due to the cultural aspects of the Jewish value system, in many ways similar to over-achieving whites and Asians. That this absurdity is even being debated is preposterous.

"Sliding further down the slope of extremist relativism, the entire premise of 'enhanced life chances' presupposes that all humans are equal in ability and to the extent they are under-represented is due to latent discrimination." Not really. You can talk about enhanced life chances as a measurement rather than as proof of racism, etc. Anyone who says that a difference in life chances can only be due to discrimination, well, let's keep it civil and disregard such a statement as feckless. Still, we can constructively ask how much of the difference in life chances is due to one's genetic virtues, how much is due to the circumstances of your childhood, how much is based on discrimination, how much on cronyism, etc. Some of it is that the rich get richer. Some of it is due to cultural differences (e.g., value of an education). How much? It's not a stupid question. Leadwind 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Males Older Than 25 Years of Age Have Higher Median Income by 5% Than White Males

Why does this article claim white males have the highest median income when in fact the data shows this is not true. This claim needs to be fixed, as it is not supported by the data. This change has been made.

Well, White, non hispanic, males do out-earn Asian males by roughly $70 anually. I'll add it later on. See here. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there are two major issues with this chart. First, by looking at the reference you site above, one can immediately see what the standard error is for each of the strata, e.g. age, race, etc... While there is great standard error diversity for each associated strata, ranging from a low of around $100 to a high a several thousands, one would very quickly conclude that for a standard degree of confidence of 95%, the associated confidence interval far exceeds the difference of $70 that you claim as the smoking gun for whites being least discriminated against (again, assuming income is a proxy for discrimination - appealing to relatavism, one would be inclined to make this claim - more on this later). If we assume a standard error of $100, to err on the side of conservatism, then to 95% confidence, the associated interval is about +/- $200. What this says is that statistically speaking, there is zero difference in median income between asian and white males. Therefore, your hypothesis fails, using well accepted statisitcal methods.
Now, to the point of income as a proxy for discrimination, you have not referenced a source as to the legitimacy of this claim. In fact, one wonders why the income chart is even present: I understand you believe it to be a proxy for discrimination; but not only does the data not support your claim, as I show above, that it is even a proxy for discrimination is questionable. Therefore, I suggest that chart be removed, unless you can demonstrate the legitimacy of income as a proxy for discrimination (see my notes above of relatavism). Further, assuming the chart is retained, then, as a minimum, I will be adding comments as to the fact that statistically speaking, there is zero difference in income between asian and white males, which casts the entire white male enhanced life chances hypothesis into disarray. I'll work on this tomorrow.

You need to reference this claim or remove it: 'With the great and rising prosperity of Asian Americans, white males may still face increased economic life chances than other demographics. ' As I note above, statistically, to 95%, there is zero median income difference.

The claim is already referenced. What you said above constitutes OR. Please familiarize yourself w/ WP:OR. BTW: That's not how you conduct a hypothesis test - and a confidence level is not the same as a confidence interval. Signaturebrendel 05:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why point you're making with making confidence interval v. confidence level. I have outlined clearly that I assumed a 95% confidence level and have subsequently derived what the associated confidence interval is, based on the data in your reference (which includes standard error values for each strata). Your hypothesis is not true at a 95% confidence level. I suggest your familarize yourself with the basics of statistics, that which would, for example, be tought in most US high-schools during the first year.


As for a hypothesis test, there is noting of the sort being made, and nor did I ever suggest one. You're confusing hypothesis test with hypothesis in general, i.e. conjecture, supposition, speculation. Again, I suggest basic high-school training in statistics. I said your hypothesis is that white males have a higher median income than asians: my reply is that, to 95% confidence, this is not true. This is not a hypothesis test: it is merely a stastistical refutation of your claim. Given that the confidence intervals overlap, zero meaning can be ascribed to your claim. Therefore, I will make the necessary annotation presently to reflect this. Please do not remove it.

Please keep personal commentary to yourself. You both, calculated the confidence interval improperly and misinterpreted it. A 95% confidence interval does not mean the figures are within 95% of the true mean, nor does it mean that there is 95% chance of the figures being correct (which is what you are falsely beleiving). I suggest going beyond high school and looking at college level stat book for the definition of confidence level. Yet, all of this irrelevant. So long as US Census Bureau data shows Non-hispanic white males w/ the highest income level-that will be put in the article. Removing sourced info is against WP policy so please abstain from doing so. Signaturebrendel 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Brendel, I am not going to argue with you on

something you apparently are ill-prepared to address. I never said the figures are within 95% of the true mean: I said the error intervals overlap, thereby implying no statistical signifcance to 95% confidence. Having a Ph.D. in Electrical Engeineering and an MBA well qualifies me to talk basic statistics. What the 95% confidence interval means is 95 times out 100, the true mean will lie with the error interval, which is exactly what you claim not to occur. Your lack of understanding of statistics is troubling. As for the calculating the confidence interval, what part of z=1.96 at 95% do you not understand. The associated confidence interval, or error interval, is simply x_bar +/- z*standard_error and it is within this interrval that the mean will land 95 times out of 100. Statistics is desinged this way to minimize Type 2 errors. You have made a stasticically specuous claim and I will continue to add this disclaimer to the page. If you have an issue with basic statistics, I will be more than happy to enlighten you. You're free to keep your US Census claim inserted, misinterpreted as it is, and I will keep my insertion regarding the overlap of the error intervals. Removing my insertion will result an email to the Wiki arbitration board. I have fully respected your position to keep this information inserted: please follow Wiki rules and ensure NPOV to adhered to.

First, income isn't normally distributed so you can't use the z distribution (z isn't 1.96 in this case). Second, see my comments on interpreting these concepts above - 95% means that if the study was repeated continously, 95% of the time it would contain the true figure. Third, don't think your the only one w/ a Ph.D. around here; what you do and who you are is really quite irrelevant here as this is not a job interview. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, your lack of understanding of statistics is deeply disturbing. As a general rule, any time the sample space is over 30, normality is an excellent approximation. Anything less one would use a t-distribution. In any event, your point is moot as for the median value, the data is highly normal. Only toward the the extreme high end of the distrubtion does one see bimodality, and even there, locally, normality is an excellent assumption. The point about the education is that I can make a reference to having the proper background to address, and use, basic statistical tools, which you apparently don't understand. If you continue to remove my input, this will get addressed by the appropriate channels. This is not a forum where you and you alone decides what's appropriate and what's not. I have laid out the basic physics of my refutation of your claim: either prove it wrong or live with it.

Wrong, just becuase n > 30 doesn't mean data is normally distributed. Income data isn't, even if n > 30. Also, I have the same understanding of these "tools" as do you - so keep the personal commentary to yourself-it's really quite rude and unprofessional. Also, we don't prove things here on WP, we simply say what our sources tell us-do you have a source for your claim? No? (Your own calculations to disprove a statement based on census bureau data doesn't count) Then it doesn't belong in the article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The data does not have to be precisley normally distributed to adopt the tools of normal statistics. The mere fact that the data includes _standard error_ and not _standard deviation_ implies even the US Census has assumed a normal distribution, otherwise the standard error would not be defined. Therefore, my assumption of normality is completely justified and I can use it as I have to dispute your claim. As for you understanding statistics, it may not be obvious to you, but it is to me, that you don't understand basic stats: the mere fact you missed standard error in the data is proof enough. Regarding your claim about you doing what the data tells you to do, that is precisely my concen with this entire article: it is highly subjective and you have interprted data to make the point you want to make: that's not NPOV by any standard. My claims have been proven. That you don't beleive them is your issue, not mine, and my addition regarding the specuous claims will remain, unless you wish to take it to arbitration. In the meantime, I would suggest familiarizing yourself was basic stats: this is not an insult to you; it will just enable you and I to share a common reference point, which without, you will not be able to understand the mathematical basis of my claim.
Ok, stop the personally commentary-it is against WP policy. I will report you if you continue (As an admin I am not allowed to block users I am involved with-but I will file a report). I have taken advanced stat courses and your continued insults of my statistical know-how needs to stop. BTW: Normal distribution is not justified-as income data is not normally distributed. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 07:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - let us begin the arbitration process. I will prepare an Excel spreadsheet demonstrating the validity of my claim refuting your hypothesis. I am not insulting you: I am merely pointing out that there apparently exists a vast chasm of my understanding of stats v. yours. As I use these tools daily and have had much success with them, I trust my use of these tools and the associated results they provide. If you tell me an email address (anonymous if you prefer) to share with you my results, that is fine. Either way, the arbitration will need to see this. In the meantime, as an appeal to some semblance of peace, I will allow my input to be considered under dispute until it is resolved.
Thank you for taking a more professional approach. I will not remove your edits but instead tag them when I get back to editing on Monday. I am uncomfortable w/ giving an e-mail - perhaps I will think of another medium by Monday. What you would need to provide is a source stating that you can assume a normal distribution in income - to back your use of what I assume to be a normal z-distribution. Meanwhile, I'll dig up a stat text book - to double check the meaning of confidence interval & level - in case I was wrong, though I think the recollection I have of my college stat classes is quite good. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Income Numbers

The claim that white males have a median income of '...$40,939, the highest of any demographic...' seems to contradict the median personal income for Asian American males, age 25+ being at $42,359.' This needs to be clarified or fixed as this represents a difference of nearly 2k in favor of asian males, directly contradicting the claim white males have the highest median income.

Ahh... but the median income of non-hispanic White males is $44,154, a full $1,420 more. see here. Signaturebrendel 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, then change the text to reflect this. Right now, the way it's written is that it's not self-consistent. In fact, it says exactly oppostite of what you're trying to say. Qualify the numbers appropriately with associated definitions to clean it up.
I changed the text. Signaturebrendel 07:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - now the data does not match the plot - they are obviously showing different data. The plot needs to be removed or at least described in better detail the precise definitions of what is shown, as the data is obviously different than what you describe in your text. I will keep adding my insertion regarding the overlaping intervals, as it is sitting on solid physics using the same data you have used.
Whites and non-hispanic whites are two different demographics-both discussed in the article. Signaturebrendel 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The plot is still misleading. In the subtext it addresses white non-hispanic males, which, according to your data, is 44k+. The plot seems to show a number closer to 42k, which would probably then include hispanic males. Either way, there should be supporting text talking to each entry in the plot which specifically describes the composition of each entry. What I will do is add a plot, using the same data as yours, with error intervals on it. We can leave it at that and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions.
OK, I agree we should/need to "allow the audience to draw their own conclusions." Of course, I will check that the plot is indeed neutral. Signaturebrendel 07:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My question is why are we discussing the income of "white non-Hispanic males" in an article about "white males" in general? The introduction has long stated that the term "white males" includes people of Middle Eastern and Hispanic descent. Why are we suddenly looking at a subset? Why not say "White male CEOs of major corporations earn A HUNDRED TIMES the national average!" It would have just as much legitimacy.

I'll change it to list the mean and median income of white males with earnings, and then compare it with that of black males, Asian males, and white women. Sound fair and balanced? Stdarg 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did that and also got rid of the large aside on Jews "dominating the Congress" and all that. Again, is this page supposed to be about particular subsets of white males, or white males in general? I lean towards the latter although small examples (not entire sections) dealing with the former seem okay. I think we also need to get some more perspective on white males in other countries. How about countries where white males are a small minority? I also got rid of the income chart entirely since it was very inaccurate. How about a chart that also shows the actual numbers, not just vague bars that make you guess at how close they are?

Stdarg 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are accurate - taken straight from the Census Bureau and the chart does a much better job of explaning the income gap between White males and most other demographics, including White females, than words. Removing the chart just makes the article a lot harder to read and less user friendly. As for the Jewish-American emphasize - I see your point. This article should be focused on White males in general. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the linked pages, neither the numbers nor the comparisons are accurate. The text claimed that "White Americans over 25+ blah blah blah" but the link was for 25-64. How can you call that accurate? Further, the claim that their income was the highest of "any demographic" is demonstrably false since many, many demographics such as Asian males 25-34 had significantly higher income than $44k. Regardless, do you agree that the data for "white american males 25+" is more appropriate for this article than the subgroup "white american males 25-64"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.72.199 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 24.225.72.199 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not the case - I checked through all links they give data for all wage earners age 25 or older. All age demographics are comparable. BTW: Comparing all white males age 25 or older to Asian males age 25 to 34 only is not acceptable (that putting a POV spin on things). Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you should check the links again. Go to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_130.htm (the source cited for the 2nd bullet point) and check the figures and demographics. They don't match the ones given in the article. I'll put my changes back in and add another bullet point with the figures for "White males, non-Hispanic, 25+ with earnings" since you seem intent on including that subgroup for some reason. As for the chart, the vagueness needs to be resolved. What does "White" mean? Is that "White, 25+, with earnings"? Does it include White Hispanics? If so, it needs to be labeled that way, or a note made in the caption. I don't have a lot of experience editing on Wikipedia, so I have to ask: Why were my changes completely reverted and not just edited? The figures I gave were correct, referenced the same Census website as the previous figures, and included more appropriate information. Stdarg 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I also think the text text under Prosperity is incorrect. For instance, it says "Due to experiencing lesser discrimination, white males face less resistance when moving up the economic ladder." That implies that white males face less resistance only because they experience less discrimination. That is incorrect, as many other factors are involved. For instance, white females are more likely to put their careers on hold for several years while raising children. Therefore they stop advancing up the "economic ladder" for a few years. That gives white males an advantage, but not due to less discrimination. Also, the sentence totally leaves out a comparison group. They face less resistance than EVERY group? Does this include Hispanics or should it be talking about white non-Hispanic males (same issue as with the income figures)?

The second paragraph doesn't even make sense. White males are not the "largest group", that would be white females. Then, there is another point about Jewish Americans, a tiny subset of "white males". Why is this even brought up? Then there's a seemingly random sentence comparing white males to Asian males.

I think both paragraphs should just be rewritten entirely. What we need is a discussion of the prosperity and status of white males, right? So we need figures about the demographics of the upper class. I think a more important component would be status and prosperity of white males over time, and how their previous success continues to have an impact today. Stdarg 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Statements - No Counter Arguments - Incorrect Claims

This was a very disturbing article. Nowhere is it substantiated in this article (be it true or not) that white males face the least amount of discrimination. This what the author has written to back it up:

"Due to experiencing lesser discrimination, white males face less resistance when moving up the economic ladder. White males have been shown to be hired and promoted more than female and minority canidates with similar backgrounds"

However, it is obviously with a tad bit of reaosning that just because one group is hired more than another group that this does NOT necessarily have to do with discrimination. Just because a white man and a black woman have "similar backgrounds" does not mean they have equal competence--it is the employer's job to decide this. The white male candidates could be more assertive about obtaining the job. They might have performed better in the interviews. They might have worn more appropriate dress. This article does not even mention these possiblities nor does it give any evidence at all that these possibilities are ruled out in the data gathered.

Furthermore, the article DOES state that Asian men earn roughly the same amount of income. So, why does the author then have the tenacity to say that white males in the workplace are discriminated against less than any other group? Clearly, this is not true if there is another group making equivalent income. If one fact contradicts a claim, the claim is false. This claim needs to be reworded or moved to an article about incomes for Asian and White men.

The author also states "as the largest group" referring to white males, yet according to the 2000 Census, there are 4,000,000 (4 million) more white females than white males in the United States [See: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t11/tab01.pdf]. The author's wording here is not biased just incorrect. It should be removed.

I believe that this entire article should be re-written about "White Male" not about "White Male Supremacy;" that should be a separate article. This article should be unbiased with counter arguments to claims and statstical data on the disadvantages for white males as well as the discrimination in their favor.

NO ONE benefits by having a biased article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.248 (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to voice their opinion. The assertions in the article are backed up by highly reputable sources. BTW: "The white male candidates could be more assertive about obtaining the job. They might have performed better in the interviews." - that could well be the result of a discriminatory culture. It is cultural discrimination that is to blame for the non-white canidate being less assertive. It is culture that (probably unconciously) leads the employer to beleive that the white canidate did better in the interview. Afterall how do you decide what constitutes "proper dress" and a "good interview?" Culture. In other words, a culture bias in favor of white men, causes the interviewer to, likely unconciously, favor the White male canidate. But since you don't have any sources congruent with dominant opinion among sociologists that is all irrelevant. What counts is that current consensus among sociologists is that White males receive privelege. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Receiving privilege is not the same as "facing less discrimination." White privilege and male privilege include things like having access to better education and health care as children, right? So let's assume that that has an effect on, say, getting into a good college. So if the white male gets in over another person, it's not because of discrimination happening at the time of the decision, it's because of other aspects of white or male privilege.
Also, I feel like this article has way too much of a slant towards white privilege (which already has its own article) and male privilege (which also already has its own article). There are many, many other things we could talk about with respect to white males. To imply that the only notable thing about white males is their "privilege" is incredibly POV. Stdarg 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead, new section

I started working on the lead, but then I realized how short the article was. I added a rough historical context, but there's a lot that needs to be done. Leadwind 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about discrimination faced by many white males, which is an important issue today that contrasts with the historical privilege of white males. I think the article should expand on the changing/declining nature of white male privilege. Right now my source is a journal article reprinted on adversity.org. I think that's probably a controversial website to use, so if somebody could check out "Journal of Intergroup Relations, Volume XXXVIII, No. 4 Winter 2001/2002, pages 33 - 44" and verify that the information is the same, we can change the source to that, which is probably considered more respectable. Stdarg 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That source isn't reputable enough. So long as you add info that flies in face of most sociological findings it is very important that you use a reputable source that we can doubble check. For now I have taken the info you add out, pending the discovery of a reputable source. Regards Signaturebrendel 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? The Journal of Intergroup Relations is a 30 year old academic journal. It can be double checked. Why do you think that is not a good source? Also, I'm not sure it even *needs* to be cited that affirmative action programs adversely affect white males. That is pretty much the definition of affirmative action -- policies to enhance the chances of historically disadvantaged groups at the expense of historically advantaged groups. I'd like to hear your argument for why that is a controversial or incorrect statement, keeping in mind what Wikipedia itself says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action).
Finally, I don't mean to sound aggressive, but it's very off-putting that you so heavy-handedly revert my changes. Do you think I'm editing in bad faith? Am I knowingly giving false information? I am trying to improve the quality of the article and I think I'm doing a pretty good job so far. Instead of collaborating you are simply reverting 100%. It's happened three or four times now. I won't just revert your reversion until I hear you out, but I would appreciate it if in the future you gave me the benefit of the doubt and work *with* me if you feel like I said something incorrect or POV. 24.225.72.199 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The journal is Ok, but above your clearly stated above that cited a less-than-reputable web-site. I just reverted a small part of the intro, but am more than willing to work with you, so long as you provide reputable sources. Just give me quote from the article and we can talk about including a quote. But stating that White males are acutally facing discrimination is very provocative and political statement, one that needs to be treatet with cuation, put in the right context and porperly referenced. Moreover, you based the assertion that White males face discrimination on a poll that showed 75% beleive that, at one point, faced discrimination. This leap, from poll results to the conclusion that there percentages support the assertion that White males face discrimination is OR. But in order to show that I am willing to work with you and do not want to be perceived as acting heavy handidly I will not revert this article even once more - we will discuss things here and may start an RfC in order to get some more opinions on the subject. In discussion keep in mind that I am on a flexible and busy schedule right-now - so I may not always respond directly. Signaturebrendel 01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The article was from the journal I mentioned, republished on that website. The university near me has the journal so I will go check it out. Personally, I think the URL is more helpful to the reader since it can immediately be followed to see the source. Also, I've noticed that the website (adversity.net) is referenced in other articles on Wikipedia (see Affirmative action in the United States). But I will still go verify it against the actual journal. 24.225.72.199 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do so please and provide a quote in order to add credibility. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race and gender

An article about white males needs to talk about whites and about males. I added this summary to get things rolling. Someone deleted it as unsourced rather than using a fact-tag. And I thought the people on the religion pages were touchy! Here it is. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and I don't think I say anything that's not common knowledge in sociology, history, etc.

==Race and gender== For hundreds of years, Europeans and European-Americans have been building a modern, industrial culture, with advanced science, technology, and government. For hundreds of years, they were also conquering other lands, generally to their benefit. Gold, slaves, raw materials, finished goods, and knowledge poured into Europe and Europe's colonies, enriching them. Sometimes those who dealt with the Europeans profited, as by trade, and sometimes they suffered, as by enslavement. Currently, European and European-descended people across the globe are wealthier and better educated overall. Regional and personal variations outweigh global averages. For example, Asians enjoy superior academic achievement in the United States, but not worldwide. Still, white males in the U.S. are heirs to the legacy of hundreds of years of industry and colonization. Cultures universally set different roles for males and females. Generally, men are significantly favored in traditional law and practice. Men (including black men, etc.) hold most senior positions in the U.S. White males enjoy male privelege in addition to racial privilege.

Who am I? If you hate people who think that white men are satan, I'm your friend. If you hate people who think that white men are saints and that the (blanks) deserve what they get, I'm your friend, too. Which probably means I'm everyone's enemy. Leadwind 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article is so far from being good that I might just despair of working on it. We'll see. Leadwind 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed, etc.

This can be seen as resulting from a combination of the more general white privilege and male privilege.

Not only does this lack a citation, it consists of "weasel words"; it "can be seen as resulting from" little green men from Mars, too.

Despite the relative historical success of the group as a whole, many white males today face overt discrimination, including homosexuals, Middle Easterners, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and Latinos.

This statement lacks a source; it is also a lie by omission; "affirmative action" (and "diversity," et al) dictates that non-homosexual, non-Middle-Eastern, non-Southern and -Eastern European, non-Latino whites (i.e., American white men, a group for whom even a name is denied) are discriminated against as a matter of federal, state, and local government practice and policy, corporate practice, institutional practice, etc.

Due to experiencing lesser discrimination, white males face less resistance when moving up the economic ladder. White males have been shown to be hired and promoted more than female and minority canidates [sic] with similar backgrounds.

This is another lie by omission, implying as it does that there is no other explanation for relatively greater ease "moving up the economic ladder" experienced by white males than discrimination. It would be equally reasonable to assert that "due to greater merit, white males move up the economic ladder more quickly and in greater numbers." (Never mind the socialist/critical theory/PCspeak implication of the language of the "moving up the ladder" metaphor, as if white males are not building and have not built most of the ladders in the first place)

As the largest group in the world, white males continue to dominate the nation's elites.

In this context, yellow males, not white males, are the world's largest group. (or if you prefer, Asian males outnumber European males). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.125.225 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Accomplishment

P.S., how can an article on white males lack a reference to Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment, in which the author shows that roughly 95% (if memory serves) of the most significant human accomplishments in the historical record are actually white male accomplishments?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22human+accomplishment%22+Murray&btnG=Search

[edit] Southern and Eastern Europeans

These people are white - I'm removing this from the article until I get an explanation.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)