> Who knew that Sony’s top brass, a line-up of mostly white male executives, earn $1 million and more a year?
is just take advantage of a difficult moment and increase the `hate`.
I don't get why this could happen on magazine like Wired...
Reading comments on the article seems that statement is pretty unfair.
I didn't check myself because I think reading those informations is bad as the hack itself, however the author who did that can also feel free to judge others.
I definitely think that it's useful to point out the over-representation of white and male voices in powerful positions (which seems particularly relevant in big media corporations, since it's such a cultural driver), but in this case it's kind of stuck in there without any follow-up or relevant thesis.
But, yeah, it's definitely silly that the top comment is just complaining about that sentence.
Yes, because privileged white guys, right? Would you feel the same if it was a minority instead? Would it even be noteworthy? Could we even have this conversation if it was a cabal of religiously exclusive peoples? That's right, only white guys are privileged, not minorities who have actual legislative privileges. One is evil, the other is supposed to be socially rewarding, but guess what, many see it for what it is; inconsistent dogma for the over-socialized.
To be frank, it's a stupid lede anyway. It's not like people would be surprised that the CxOs for an entrenched, major company like Sony would be highly-paid and white males. It's basically the default assumption for that demographic.
This is the sort of trite, self congratulatory "socially conscious" type of comment that is appearing all over the place. What does it have to do with Sony getting hacked? Nothing really. It does reveal the personal sentiments of the author somewhat, and also your own. Did the comment help anybody? I doubt it. Other than stoking resentment what possible purpose could stating that the executives were "overwhelmingly white males" possibly have?
I was under impression that identifying the inequality among upper management at Sony Pictures was at least part of the reason for the early release of that specific document. i.e. that point, was the point and should probably be in the opening of any reporting. Call it a low blow, call it whatever you like, I just don't think any female / non white guy would appreciate how belittling your comments are.
But them I am kind of biased since the whole ghotz debacle. Suck fony and all that. (yes I know this is sony pic, not sony)
> It's the typical diatribe from this demographic that wants to add this to every conversation whether it's relevant or not.
One difficulty is that people who are not affected by it do not notice it and they don't think it's a big deal. It doesn't register that the star of almost every movie is a white male.
It's human nature to be lost in our own perspectives; it's why it's so important to make an effort to imagine walking around in other people's shoes: If you are a minority or a woman, you are faced with this discrimination everywhere. Every time you turn on the TV, walk down the street, at work, in social situations, dating, at the restaurant; when you read a history book, in the news (e.g., recent police discrimination issues), when you look at our government, when the camera at the football game picks out the young hot white women in the crowd, etc.
If bringing it up all the time makes you uncomfortable, maybe that's a good thing. If it seems like the issue comes up a lot, maybe that speaks to the enormity of the problem.
> It doesn't register that the star of almost every movie is a white male.
> If bringing it up all the time makes you uncomfortable, maybe that's a good thing.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I know it's an attack on a perceived villain, but in a "subtle" way. It's not subtle, it's completely transparent.
It's all about dollars. The industry thinks it'll make more money pushing white male/female stars. The racists are the movie going crowd voting with their dollar bills, and not the industry.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable that the majority of popular music is geared towards teenage white girls, because that's the market they want to capture. That's where the money is. Is that racist or ageist? No. It's marketing.
Often times these folks in charge are not only white males, but Jewish white males, which makes them a minority group as well. But that's not always pointed out.
"White" has been used as a common term for a race longer than anyone living has been alive, so, no, I don't think anyone alive could miss the days when "white" wasn't a race.
People can, I suppose, miss the days when "white", as a term for a race, had almost exclusivey positive connotations when used by anyone with any influence in society and pine for the days when white privilege was so strong as to be virtually unquestioned, but you shouldn't mistake missing that for missing "white" not being a race.
In a history of American cities, I read that the Polish, Irish, Italian, German, etc. identities shifted to 'white' around the 1930s or 1940s (my memory is a little hazy).
Its true that before then, Polish, Irish, Italian (German not so much, AFAIK, but possibly) were ethnic identities often viewed as distinct from -- and frequently discriminated against by -- the dominant white-identifying group (in the same what whites of Hispanic origin have continued to be since), but white racial identity existed before then.
> Who knew that Sony’s top brass, a line-up of mostly white male executives, earn $1 million and more a year?
is just take advantage of a difficult moment and increase the `hate`.
I don't get why this could happen on magazine like Wired...
Reading comments on the article seems that statement is pretty unfair.
I didn't check myself because I think reading those informations is bad as the hack itself, however the author who did that can also feel free to judge others.