- Feb 9, 2015
Does Privilege Matter?
Does privilege matter?
Does privilege matter?
That is not what he is saying, he was a Marxist and a humanist, he believed that everyone should be given the same opportunities is life. But he also believed that being in a disadvantaged socioeconomic position didn't make you less of a person or less able to find meaning in your life and there for there is no privilege.youdont12know said:If your social standing is low just lower your expectations. Jeez oppressed people just be happy you have options. Like f'ing suicide.
Yeah that sound like something a revolutionary Marxist would say.Kenjitsuka said:He probably looked outside his mansion walls at the people working on his garden and said: "They can totes quit when they want and become Master Prison Sand Castle builders of world class!".
Class privilege has a far greater effect, as it can show up in someone regardless of race, sex, or any other factor and overshadow any other disadvantage that individual might have from privilege.ObsidianJones said:If you found a girl under 17 who truly can understand what love is and chose you to love, no matter how well thought out she can make that statement... if you choose to express your love, you will go to jail.
Unless you are rich and privileged. Then you can be found guilty and not go to jail because you might get hurt [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/31/3421132/rich-heir-rapes-his-3-year-old-daughter-gets-no-jail-time-because-he-will-not-fare-well-in-prison/].
This is dependent on context and the details of any given situation. To make such a sweeping generalization is correct but not useful for assessing individual situations. Being white or a man may carry privilege in one situation and disadvantage in another. The benefits or disadvantages any one person faces depends on many factors some of which can change rapidly and some of which are essentially static.chikusho said:Sure, you don't choose your race or place in society or any other inherent privileges. But you sure as hell benefit from them.
But people don't just live in "western society" they live in specific neighborhoods with different socio-economic, racial, religious makeups. When people pay attention only to the macro and try to apply it to the micro it is very easy to lose the justice they may be fighting for. This seems an extraordinarily common trend in today's social justice movements.The problem mostly comes from the fact that people rarely reflect upon the parts of themselves that they haven't chosen as long as they are considered 'normal'. And 'being white' is an example of something that's a normal in western society, and if you deviate from that norm you are automatically an other. Thus, when you don't reflect on your individual attributes and heritage (or, "check your privilege") it becomes impossible to realize that there are other, perfectly accurate worldviews separated from the societal structures you take for granted.
You are correct that it is the category itself that tends to carry the prejudice. Many people make the mistake of assuming it is specific categorizations within the broader categories that carry the prejudice and not the category itself. In other words, people will often make the mistake of assuming that "being black" is what carries the prejudice when it is race in general that carries it. Racial prejudice affects groups of people and individuals differently depending on where they live within the western world and a slew of other factors.For example, Native Americans weren't 'Indians' before America was colonized. They were Apaches, Mohaves and Potawatomi.
Black people weren't black before Africa was colonized, they were Zulu, Maasai and Oromo.
How we choose to categorize and identify people shows what traits are valued in the society we inhibit. And some of those categories usually carry a lot of prejudice, and very little actual/valuable/relevant information, regarding the person they are describing. The simple fact that white men can move throughout most of the western world without having their ethnicity or gender questioned is an enormous advantage, simply because that's what's considered to be the norm.
Excuse me for butting in, but you've mentioned 'social justice' a few times. Do you think the Social Justice contingent are the only ones who are ignoring the individual? I merely ask because I don't want to go and assume before raising some points.Gorrath said:Broad categorizations and the meta discussion of justice is fine and even useful but when people try and apply broad categorizations and the meta to the individual, justice can be lost. We have built the theory of our justice systems on this understanding, that each person is their own case and each case should be assessed on its own merits. And yet with social justice we are so keen on ignoring the individual and the specific merits of their personal experiences that justice and privilege become feeble concepts.
Lack of privilege can get you gunned down at 12 years old by a cop who hasn't even fully gotten out of his vehicle for carrying a toy gun in an open carry state. I take it Richard Bach didn't ever have to contend with anything like that.Bocaj2000 said:I agree with the video. When all is said and done, the only person to blame for your actions and lack there of is yourself. Privilege may open the door to more methods of completing those actions, but it never restricts completely. Just remember:
"If your happiness depends on what somebody else does, I guess you do have a problem."
Oh not at all. The specific reason I am picking on that here is because contemporary social justice seems to be riddled with presumptive thinking that overshadows its own goals. I understand the reflexive desire to defend social justice since its goals can be seen as righteous and I am very glad you asked me to clarify instead of assuming a meaning I did not intend. Sincerely, thank you for that.ObsidianJones said:Excuse me for butting in, but you've mentioned 'social justice' a few times. Do you think the Social Justice contingent are the only ones who are ignoring the individual? I merely ask because I don't want to go and assume before raising some points.Gorrath said:Broad categorizations and the meta discussion of justice is fine and even useful but when people try and apply broad categorizations and the meta to the individual, justice can be lost. We have built the theory of our justice systems on this understanding, that each person is their own case and each case should be assessed on its own merits. And yet with social justice we are so keen on ignoring the individual and the specific merits of their personal experiences that justice and privilege become feeble concepts.
The "appeal to bigger problems" is a bit a of fallacy, yes? Just because Jane is suffering more injustice than Bob isn't a good reason to ignore the injustice against Bob. He's a person who deserves justice too. Just because you may find a country where they kill homosexuals for being open about it does not mean we shouldn't strive for equality of opportunity and fairness here, right?Rastrelly said:OMG, guys, this 'priviledge' fighting shite is so funny =) The poorest black gay female junkie in US has more 'priviledges' then average person in, say, Syria or Iraq, or, by the way, in Ukraine. Maybe you all will start with sending all your money but 40 or 50 dollars a month to charity? This will make you all much more equal and, I suppose, will oddly enough put an end to all 'priviledge' discussions =)