What is White Female Supremacy?

A white female supremacist is usually an educated white female professional who while claiming not to be racist, shows overwhelming preference and favoritism towards white females identical to herself.

A white female supremacist:
1) takes advantage of affirmative action programs;
2) surrounds herself with other white female professionals (her girlfriends);
3) protects her turf and the positions of her white female friends while creating a new glass ceiling for people of color–especially Latino and Black women.

The white female supremacist does this while claiming to be the very ideal of modern workplace “diversity”.

The white female supremacist is a fortunate person.
She likely comes from a middle or upper-class family background; and her privileges are many:
1) she grew up middle or upper-class
2) she went to college (paid for by her white male father).
3) she is considered “Thee Beauty Standard” for the entire western world. (Go to any supermarket and look at the covers of all the major fashion magazine.)
4) she uses affirmative action preferences to gain positions of power within the pubic and private sector; and
5) she–if attractive–uses her sexuality to curry favor with powerful white males within the workplace hierarchy.

The white female supremacist actually believes she is not a racist, yet her actions prove otherwise. Careful examination of nearly any public or private workplace environment will overwhelmingly depict a phenomena of white female privilege, i.e. “The All White Girls’ Club”.

Meanwhile, women of color, educated and hardworking, are confronted with a new kind of discrimination–a hidden and insidious form of hate–I call it White Female Supremacy, and it seems very little attention is paid to its painful and destructive presence for any individual not like her, or her white female sisters.

yes… there is this risk in bipartisanship. it is just as you say. our side offering, the other one taking advantage. the soft, nice ones getting rolled over, and not for the first time.

i am wondering how bipartisan you have to get to be elegible to the masses. those masses you need to get the job. how many compromises…?

“i hope president obama finds his pissed off voice. i need to hear that from him.” blows my mind. you’re really serious, you’re so sincere and authentic. so many thoughts and feelings come up that i got to sort through them for some time.

i just hope obama reads these lines of yours, not the president, but the candidate. you have said so much in so few words.

thanks a lot, belle!

though i have to say, too, that until this whole public blowup i never thought of the legislative aspect of the changes. it was the movement itself that changed my life, changed my view of the world. i wasn’t thinking for a minute about what was going on in washington. it was people in the streets and the power of that.

with the exception of his insistent drive for bipartisanship (puke), that’s what i get from obama: that excitement, we can change the world, we can make this a better place, come together, be better together than we ever will be alone.

i just want him to drop the bipartisanship. no. bipartisan means dems bend over and the rethugs give us a swift kick in the ass. or an ass fu**in dry. it’s ugly. bipartisan doesn’t work with these people. they’ve seized control of this country and we must ~ MUST ~ seize it back. i don’t know how we can do that by being bipartisan when we’re so far dangling over the right wing cliff we’re just about done for.

he is brilliant, not blind, nobody’s fool. in his position, he can ill afford to express the justified, righteous anger that is the only proper response to what bush & co. has done to us.

i hope president obama finds his pissed off voice. i need to hear that from him.

thanks for the enlightenment. i do appreciate it.

On the one hand, here’s Obama, speaking with the graceful articulation of a poet. On the other hand, there’s Hillary. Speaking like every other candidate out there.

She’s grasping and struggling for metaphors. She jealous of the passion Obama is inspiring in people, and her campaign desperately needs to do the same. She’s falling flat on her face, every time. It’s like chips and guacamole? Maybe next time, it’ll be about fried chicken and watermelon? Fried rice?

Out of touch corporate establishment politician.

DO NOT WANT.

we cannot imagine today’s world without the struggle for civil rights having succeeded. yet, i do dare to venture that if lbj had not done it, the course of the world’s history would have forced the change upon the us of a. the world would have developed, and it would have drawn america along. the time was ripe. nowhere in the civilised world could we see an oppression as it was in the states. a ripe fruit had to be picked, or it had to fall to the ground by its own weight.

lbj’s only part in history was to pick that fruit, like any farmer would have done out of pure logics, pure necessity for survival. he did it in time, and america stayed in tune with the rest of the world.

i hold this to be one historic fact. the present administration, the president… all those… ehem… people, they have no choice anymore, and they would have had no choice then. they can still opt for the house nigga. and they do. but even they are faced with the fact that there are no house niggas left anymore, and those who seem to be turn out to have their own lives. even these people, if back in the 60s, would have delayed the events by no more than 4 years. the fruit would have dropped to the ground, right at their feet. and it might have exploded.

see, that is what america is about, in its most positive way. and it is just this positive america hillary has denied its existence by going backwards, by telling us “it took a president”, when the president was no more than a pawn of history, and history was brought about by the people. and it is so obvious that this could not have escaped her attention. not at her age, not with her experience.

instead of going backwards to reinterprete what happened, it is obama who lives it all today. who does not go backwards, who does not relive the conflicts of the past, but who goes beyond them: he does not care for color. he does care for justice, but he has already entered the next phase: that we are all one, we just have to live it. and there is no ignorance of the gaps which are still there, yet he does not look for solutions in the past. he builds on what we are, and points to the future, to what we can be. there is the hope! if he becomes president, this hope will have the sign it needs to become reality. even if still slowly, but that is how history works.

you can have history either way. you can look back at it, and you can make it yourself for a better future.

hillary still has to pull her arguments from the past. and, so that they suit her, even from a twisted past. i truely despise that.

and another word. do not blame the messenger. corporate news is as bad as it is, but when we are aware of the pitfalls, we can make do with what we get.

and what we got was hillary saying what she said to the cameras. we got her live on tv. we need no more. she really said it: “it took a president”. no, hillary, it took the people. and it took history. and the people made history.

she said it to the cameras. this much i do believe my eyes.

and now she herself is history.

now, i don’t want no more of that old shit. i need a new world. and a new leader who is up to his time, and maybe -hopefully- a little ahead of it.

i see your point to a point ;-) marc. but i fear you are very optimistic. but let’s consider first the fact that the president ~ nor any other individual with sufficient power to legislate ~ did not listen to the people on the ERA. that was significant movement as well and one which was, in the end, refused.

but i don’t want to compare movements, not at all, and i don’t want to diminish in any way the struggle for civil rights which has been the pinnacle of all movements, my opinion only. but they are rights, not gifts, and shouldn’t require laws to make change, you’re right. and yet this country is a nation of laws and given human nature and the history of racism and prejudice in this country, without law, without legislating those rights, i don’t think things would have changed. just my opinion.

but then again . . . imagine this president, this administration, this congress faced with the same outrage of the people, the same demands of the people, the same voices raised over injustice, demanding change. they represent us too. supposedly.

but if you think change would happpen now, you’re far more optimistic than i am. the kind of dissent and activism that was a regular thing in the ’60s would land folks in guantanimo these days. just my opinion, again, and it all just makes me so tired that i’m going to shut up now.

except for this: i love obama. love him. i cried listening to his speech post-NH. my heart lifted, i felt the most extravagant rush of hope and excitement and joy. it was incredible. i think having him as president of this country would be a magnificent thing. and i also love hillary clinton. i am deeply disturbed by what i’ve been hearing and i mistrust the messenger ~ the right wing -controlled media in this country ~ and will wait to see what happens.

ANY president would have had to listen to the movement of mlk. first, because the politicians are supposed to represent the people. second, because human rights demanded it.

sooner or later, with lbj or anyone thereafter, human rights had to be installed in the us. and political power had to be truely representative.

that is why i see absolutely no special place for the president who finally behaved as a democrat, and who finally brought justice. he only executed what democratically and legally was required.

he was OBLIGED to do so. he did not chose.

this is what hillary seems to forget, and forgetting this reveals her as anything else but a democrat and a law-abiding person.

never have we been talking about political issues for the black. it was always about legal issues. the rights black people have, as any people. not the favors granted to them. nobody ever asked for a favor.

civil rights!… now that must sound a bell, belle.

short of overthrowing a government and starting from scratch ~ not a bad idea, but it didn’t happen ~ the movement had to have legislative support to make lasting change.

it is typical of the media as a whole that the recounting of her speech leaves out the portions that actually support her point. there’s nothing in the speech that would indicate anything but the greatest admiration of MLK and the movement in general.

as a veteran of the effort to pass the ERA, the one which failed in the ’80s due to lack of presidential support and lack of congressional support, what she said is true.

that being said, this is how we’re going to do it, us democrats. in an election year when we’re turning out in droves to vote for a new (god save us from the present) president, we’ll manage to shoot ourselves in the foot and let the bastards win again.

Hillary was basically saying that Martin Luther King’s work was for naught..that people of color should thank their lucky stars for LBJ.

Do you actually think LBJ would of done anything if MLK had not brought all the racism to the forefront with his marches and protests?

then we’ll fight the kooks hard.

then let’s make obama president.

But I don’t think that’s what Hillary was saying here. She was not dismissing the role of MLK, Rosa Parks or other social activists, but was clarifying that the role of President is very different. Since she and Obama are running for President, they’ll need to do more than inspire, they also need to work in a very specific context (Washington) to get things done.

Her word choices are extremely unfortunate, but I honestly don’t believe that there’s racist intent there. Shouldn’t we be focusing our energies on hating on the arch-conservative candidates who will truly do the most harm if elected?