Poll: Privilege

[Dizchu]

So... Your definition of privilege is something that is statistically proven to improve someone's life over the lives of others that cannot have it or access to it?

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/11/30-examples-of-male-privilege/

Some of those examples are indeed very true (others extremely subjective)... but don't women have "privileges" that men don't, too? I mean that's what "benevolent sexism" is all about, after all. My argument is that the expectations and restrictions men and women face are around equal, though the nature of the prejudice is different (men are expected to be assertive, cold and stoic, women are expected to be chaste, nurturing and reliant on others).

I think the expectation of "greater responsibility" thrust upon men is seen as more "noble", therefore sexism (in a broad sense) is skewed in their favour. I don't personally find this to be the case, as vulnerability is a trait we all exhibit.

I'd rather just ditch the word "privilege" and make people aware that any gender double-standards are damaging (as I believe sexism to be something that contributes to more sexism).

I can even give a real world anecdotal example. I work with Kindergartners (5 year olds if you don't have Kindergarten in your country). My more ignorant coworkers are constantly telling the (5 year old!) girls in my classes to "close their legs" or "do not sit that way" or "ladies do not sit like that." The boys never get told this. They can sit however they want.

Interesting example, I don't doubt that it's sexist... however, if one of the boys chose to play with girls' toys, what would the reaction be? I know this depends on the place (some toy stores really push the "gender neutral" idea which I think is cool on a conceptual level). But I know that boys are taught from a very early age what's appropriately "masculine" for them, an attitude that comes from both authority figures such as teachers and parents and their peers.

Additionally, I have repeatedly witnessed the girls in my classes being talked to as though they were all idiots, regardless of skill, while the boys are all given patience and understanding, regardless of their skill.

Hmm, I can bring up anecdotal examples where the opposite is true (and statistical evidence that in many supposedly "gender neutral" subjects, females have higher chances of succeeding), but I think responding to anecdotes with anecdotes stagnates the discussion. We also live in different countries so maybe there are different attitudes.

Speaking about racism in terms of the privileges and disadvantages that white people and PoC have to deal with actually makes the conversation easier, and still completely accurate.

I think it depends on the tone of the conversation. Now I understand that the USA has a more toxic and widespread problem with racism than we have here in the UK (here far-right parties like the BNP and to a lesser extent UKIP get ridiculed on a daily basis for their bigotry, high-profile racism gets a lot of social media attention too). But when the tone shifts to "guilt by association", it gets unnecessarily hostile.

Now I love to make fun of fellow caucasians. I think some "white stereotypes" are hilarious, but when they're consistently portrayed as the "oppressor"... that's when it gets awkward. I mean I probably agree with you on this, just the word "privilege" makes me uncomfortable. And no, it's not because I have to "check my privilege", it's because it's not unusual for an environment of condescension to come along with it.

But then again maybe that's just because of where I live, often characterised as "notoriously" multicultural.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Snip

People are not "Moving the bar down." They're not saying that these things are privileges, they're saying that some people are more privileged than others, basically they're saying some people have it better than the other.

Why? That's like arguing that focusing on the wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is pointless. If you want to fix a problem you need to see exactly why it's a problem.

No one really says either. People tend to say "You're privileged because you don't need to deal with X" and for some reason this makes some people get really defensive. Hell if I know why.

Really it feels like you're just splitting hairs over words here.

You're using privilege in two different ways here. First you use it as a comparison term (some people are more privileged than others), then you use it as an adjective to describe someone (You're privileged). Is it one or both? (just pure curiosity here)

The wealth gap between between the 1% and everyone else is different. The 1% are all focusing on maintaining the gap through bribing politicians and news stations. In this analogy, they're both the people being called privileged, and the bigots.
And heck, you could say they are privileged, since they're filthy rich.

I'm not just splitting hairs over words here, I'm splitting meanings. A privilege is beyond a right, it's not anyone's right to be born into a rich family, but it's everyone's right not to be shot for their skin colour. The latter gets thrown in as a privilege by some, something people aren't entitled to, and that's where the problems lies.

Both really. Some words can be limited to a single definition.

Yeah well here's the thing. Are there people who argue against these terms that aren't racist? Oh Hell yes plenty. Here's the thing though. Not all of them are. There are plenty of people who have unhealthy mindsets that include racist thoughts, but they don't think that they're racist because they don't hate black people. For example. My mother doesn't think that she's racist. She just thinks Whites and Blacks shouldn't marry. There are these causal ingrained stigmas in our culture that so many people just ignore and don't like being brought to light. College Humor did a decent video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyin6uipy4

Yeah, it is. I don't see why this means why we can't talk about some people being better off than others. People have a tenancy to just pretend things like these don't exist if they get the chance. You know the saying, "Out of Sight out of Mine"

Not sure where you're going with this, but I agree with this paragraph.

And how do we fix this "Out of sight out of mind" situation? By focusing on some people not being disadvantaged and having their rights taken away, or focusing on the ones that are? Or are you referring to your previous paragraph? It seems like the subject has changed. Please clarify.

Unless, what you're trying to say is that the hypothetical HR manager doesn't know they're racially discriminating against someone. In that case someone needs to explain that to them. Calling them privileged though, wouldn't change a thing.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Society is made up, I agree with that. However, people don't have to agree with what those in power or in the majority dictate. I'm trying to fix a broken way of thinking (in a tiny tiny place in the grand scheme of things, but who knows, whispers have wings).

The Majority has the money, The Majority has the privatized armed force.

Cpt, you and I are on the same path, and I commend you on that. The system needs to be fixed for all, but... that's simply not desirable by those in the Majority.

I don't know where you are, but the majority of politicians in most countries are bought and paid for.

NY Governor Cuomo decided to make a commission to root out shady practices in the world of politics. This commission was named the Moreland Commission [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/nyregion/governor-andrew-cuomo-and-the-short-life-of-the-moreland-commission.html?_r=0].

New York is an expensive place to live. So there are some subsidies and the like that people can apply for to have affordable housing. This being the world, you can actually buy those affording housing statutes and apply it to anything.

Say, like an apartment building where a duplex apartment can cost 93 million. And that annual taxes alone would be 200k. With just having the affordable housing be... somewhere in this building, those taxes will be cut to 18k.

This is Not a hypothetical. This actually happened. The management bought the affording housing to act as an incentive to rich people. It just so happen that the building time lapsed how good the Affordable Housing credit was good for, and it was worthless... So The company that owns this building gave Cuomo a 100,000 campaign fund and lo and behold, Cuomo signed the Affordable Housing to be valid once again for the building... and five others that company owns. And these credits are good for 10 years, so all the taxes the rich SHOULD BE PAYING, the rich found a way to buy their way out of it.

The Moreland Commission found this out, reported their findings to Cuomo. Who said 'that's nice'.... and disbanded the commission.

Nothing will happen to Cuomo. The Credits will stay for people who really don't even need it. The people are screwed once again.

Majority looks out for Majority (and I'm talking monetary, not race wise). Majority will make laws to serve Majority. When confronted, the Majority will say "eh" and nothing will happen.

Nothing can happen unless the majority, people wise, stop bickering amongst ourselves. That's the only to way tackle these problems non-violently. The two alternatives are either bloody, or more of this.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

You say I'm not using the words privilege and right, right, yet offer no definition of your own. Would you mind doing so.

You are missing the nuance again, I accused you of misusing the word rights and privilege, I accused you of not acknowledging the meanings of the words right and privilege.

I do have to say that it was purely intentional that I left out definitions in hopes you would look them up yourself, damn pie in the sky idealism. But okay here you go.

Privilege
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege

With nuance:

6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person.
This is the one you use.

7. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
This is the one you neglect. This is both misuse and lack of acknowledgment.


Right
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With Nuance: You should acknowledge that not only does right have broad scope but also that the plural form of right has an much broader meaning. In other words, you tell me what definition of this word you were using. My best guess was that you meant Liberty.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Rights
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rights?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With nuance: Liberties becomes a more concise word for the plurality of right. Being the misuse of the word rights for not acknowledging the word right.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Can anyone be disadvantaged without someone else being advantaged in comparison? And vice-versa? I don't think this distinction has teeth. Sure, you can say they're disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean you're not privileged in comparison (and these are strictly comparative terms in the first place), and sure, you can call it a right, but when other people don't have that right, then when you do have that right, you're basically privileged. Having rights other people don't is certainly a privilege.

This all just sounds like semantic quibbling to get out of the primary guilt complex: that one's own success owes in some part to other people not having the opportunity to compete for the same position. Nothing you've said actually contests that root of the issue, however. It just draws a little semantic blanket over it, to hide it away. It's not like the primary guilt complex cannot be contested; I don't even think it's strictly true. Economics is not a zero sum game, and not disadvantaging qualifying individuals would almost certainly create more total value to go around. But that's a different discussion, and notably not a semantic one.

If we say everyone has the right to live, but then someone dies (murdered), does that right become a privilege? There's a huge distinction between what we are entitled to (not being shot/rejected for work for skin colour), and what we given (born into a rich/well-off family).

I don't have to say about the second paragraph. Yes in some way the situation of everyone int he world effects everyone in the world. There's an endless stream of cause and effect, considering some sort of guilt over that is pointless. I don't know if there are people that do, but they shouldn't.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

snip

You say I'm not using the words privilege and right, right, yet offer no definition of your own. Would you mind doing so.

You are missing the nuance again, I accused you of misusing the word rights and privilege, I accused you of not acknowledging the meanings of the words right and privilege.

I do have to say that it was purely intentional that I left out definitions in hopes you would look them up yourself, damn pie in the sky idealism. But okay here you go.

Privilege
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege

With nuance:

6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person.
This is the one you use.

7. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
This is the one you neglect. This is both misuse and lack of acknowledgment.


Right
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With Nuance: You should acknowledge that not only does right have broad scope but also that the plural form of right has an much broader meaning. In other words, you tell me what definition of this word you were using. My best guess was that you meant Liberty.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Rights
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rights?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20rights

With nuance: Liberties becomes a more concise word for the plurality of right. Being the misuse of the word rights for not acknowledging the word right.

So I'm not using the other definition of privilege, but I am using one, but I should also use the other(s)? What's the nuance here? Cos' I'm lost.

I guess going from the site I'd be meaning civil rights, but I think of it as more of a universal right, or something that should be.
I think.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

To paraphrase the words of the great George Carlin; "Rights are temporary privileges, they're imaginary, we made em up". So whilst being a white cismale does make me privileged they are also disadvantaged. It's like saying its not hot outside when it's cold.

Tomato, tomatoes, they both mean the same thing. Except one puts the "blame" on you.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

So I'm not using the other definition of privilege, but I am using one, but I should also use the other(s)? What's the nuance here? Cos' I'm lost.

I advise rereading it. I am sorry, but I am having a hard time reexplaining this with out coming off rude.

I guess going from the site I'd be meaning civil rights, but I think of it as more of a universal right, or something that should be.
I think.

Look up liberty.

 

[Duster]

-cut, may have misread the op

I am not certain what he's implying

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

-cut, may have misread the op

I am not certain what he's implying

That certain things, such as not being shot in the face by a bigot because of the colour of your skin, is a right not a privilege. Hence me not being shot by a bigot doesn't make me privileged, but the person who is shot by a bigot because of the colour of their skin is having their rights taken from them.

Basically, not having to fear discrimination by bigots is a right, not a privilege.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Anyway, I had a mini-discussion about this topic just the other week, actually, because I don't really see what the benefit is in telling someone to "check their privilege".

95% of the time, it's basically the "there are children starving in Africa" argument redux. It's telling someone "you have it better than someone else, so shut up about everything".

 

[wulf3n]

That's not really going any deeper, it has about the same complexity as people not liking it because they are uncomfortable with confronting unearned advantage, it's not a deeper reason, just a different one.

In this case, the answer is likely, "all of the above", there are probably multiple simultaneous reasons that such proclamations can make people uncomfortable, because you can both dislike the idea that you have an advantage in life that you didn't earn, and feel like you are being unfairly generalized for your traits.

There are also probably elements of feeling like your own disandvantages are being minimized or trivialized, or that you are being dismissed for an uncontrolled aspect of your life, or that your accomplishments are being undermined by being proclaimed as not fully yours, or that they are lesser accomplishments because you didn't have the same disadvantages as someone else.

Of course the variation in response is going to depend on the specifics of what type of privilege is being talked about, and how it applies to the conversation at hand.

I agree. Deeper was a poor choice of word.

 

[RoonMian]

snip

But you are still privileged over other people by bigots not being bigoted against you.

 

[Silence]

YES

All what happens if you say privilege is:

- anti-reaction from the "privileged" person. Even worse if he belongs to the "privileged" class but never was privileged, like factory workers and the like.

- using it as a means to silence criticism. "Shut up, you are privileged."

--

It's not like it's not in some sense "true". But it gets you nowhere or worse, in the opposite direction you want.

If you want to talk disadvantages, there is not really an argument against it. AND people can't feel attacked, because it has nothing directly to do with them. Saying someone is privileged is like saying "Hey, we want you to LOSE your privileges." But the true goal should be: Get EVERYONE the BEST privileges.

So yes, you are right. 100%.

 

[TheMightyMeekling]

This is part of a larger issue I have with the way people argue on the internet. The two sides think that everyone is on the same level as them, so they don't try to explain what they mean when they use words. Here is a fact: HOW you say something is more important than what you say, and if you are trying to convince someone, stating something in a way that may be taken as an accusation will garner hostility and entrenchment.

As for the OP, the fact that some rights are not enforced for some people does not make the people whose rights are being enforced privileged, its a sign that the system is corrupt.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I was hoping an option in the poll would be "Check it" and was sorely disappointed.
But other than that, yes. I started reading your post and was worried it would evolve into some "All white males need to sit down and make up for what they have done" sort of thing but I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Silvanus]

There is a huge implied difference. What is the difference between these two?

1: Bennie is privileged for having a house
2: Janice is disadvantaged by not having a house

The first implies that the outlier from what should be the norm is Bennie, while the norm should obviously having a house. It's in fact Janice who has a disadvantage by not having a place to live. Furthermore, the feeling the sentences give off is completely different as well.

A difference in 'feeling', arguably. Not in content. I wouldn't infer what the norm is meant to be from the first statement: it's possible for the majority to be privileged.

 

[DataSnake]

So I'm not using the other definition of privilege, but I am using one, but I should also use the other(s)? What's the nuance here? Cos' I'm lost.

You're saying that we should only use the word in situations that fit one definition, not the other. A brief conversation for analogy:

Spoiler

Terry: We have a new policy: whenever you use the company car you to record your mileage in this log.
Gonad: That's not a log, it's a book. Logs are tree trunks.
Terry: "Log" can mean either a tree trunk or a book used to track activities.
Gonad: So I'm using the first definition. Why should I use the other?

While Gonad is right that "log" can refer to a building material, insisting that people only use it in that sense, and not to refer to recordkeeping, is still incorrect.

Anyway, I had a mini-discussion about this topic just the other week, actually, because I don't really see what the benefit is in telling someone to "check their privilege".

95% of the time, it's basically the "there are children starving in Africa" argument redux. It's telling someone "you have it better than someone else, so shut up about everything".

In most of the cases I've seen it used, it's more of a response to comments along the lines of "keep your politics out of my games" or "I don't see a problem here, so stop complaining", and the point is that you don't see the problem because you're privileged, not because there isn't a problem at all. It's not "you have it better so fuck you", it's "your perspective on this issue is limited, maybe you should listen to other people instead of just assuming you know everything".

 

[Senare]

So; let's stop calling X people privileged, and start focusing on fixing the disadvantages of different groups, and give them the same rights afforded to everyone else.

To summarise what I'm saying (as if it hasn't gotten across already): These things aren't privileges, they are rights.

Meh. I see "privilege" as an academic concept which is a useful shorthand for something along the lines of "an invisible standard". This is a separate, secondary meaning apart from what "privilege" usually means.
"Rights" is a good word on its own, but I do not feel that it captures what I think of when the concept of privilege is brought up. The word "privilege" is not the perfect choice either. But now that the concept has been named "privilege" I do not see much use in redefining it to "rights". I suspect that it would cause more confusion than it is worth.

As for your call to action: I would like to focus on fixing things too. But if I had not gotten the concept of "privilege" explained to me then I would have lacked an important perspective - a perspective that is very useful for fixing some things.