Poll: Privilege

[Blow_Pop]

What would you consider a privilege, then, if being favoured over someone else isn't one?

Something you have that isn't considered human right and yet you are entitled to.

For example, free contraceptives. It's lifestyle enhancement, isn't necessary for normal human functioning and yet people feel entitled to receive it for free. That is basic definition of privilege.

Bad example there, birth control (contraceptives) is very necessary for my normal human functioning[footnote]I have a medical condition in which my adrenal glands do not function as they should[/footnote]. If I were to live in a state in which it were difficult to get, or outright banned, I would be SOL. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who depends on the benefits of contraceptives for a reason other than controlling birth.

Birth control is a vital component of HRT (Hormone replacement therapy).

You have a medical condition, you are exception to the rule. I'm not against free birth controll for people who have a valid medical reason for it.

However, people are pushing for contraceptives to be covered under basic health care and treated as any other medical drug for everyone, not just people who have real medical conditions that are best treated that way.

So, we don't have conflict of opinion, just lack of understatement and/or clarity.

For that matter then, Viagra isn't necessary for normal human functioning but people have no problems with that being covered under health insurance. But Viagra, like birth control, is necessary for some people for differing reasons. Like reducing pulmonary hypertension. Most people use it for erectile dysfunction yes. But the people who are against birth control think it's just being used by sluts who don't want to be pregnant but want to have sex (i have a lot of choice words for those people but I won't say them here since it's not important) but in reality, EVERYONE I know who uses it uses it to be able to function as a normal human being.

I can't tell you how many times people have found out I'm on it and called me a slut who just wants to sleep around. Never mind the fact I haven't had sex in 2 years and when I don't take it I can't get out of bed for 2 days. I have friends in more religious parts of the US who get called whores because they have PCOS and the birth control helps them to function normally. I mean I do have other reasons for taking it that aren't necessarily medical (moderate to severe dysphoria when I bleed and so that when I do get sexually active again it's a step towards helping preventing pregnancy) but my main reason is so that I can do my job every day and not be incapacitated for 2 days every month.


In response to the OP:

Semantics. That's all I have to say.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

The broader it is, the meaningless it becomes. If we're going to use it as "X is better off than Y", then we can start applying it to the homeless person who has shoes compared to the one without. Suddenly the homeless person with shoes is privileged.

Yes it does mean that.

Then that also raises the question of why we aren't just saying "better off" instead of "privileged" because "better off" only has one meaning and conveys it in a far clearer sense.

You are answering one of my previous posts. The phrase 'better off' does imply more meaning. The homeless person with shoes is better off than the homeless person with out shoes. let's get into one of your previous statements though.

Spoiler: From your first post

Some people are discriminated against based on their skin colour, on their gender, on their sexuality. People are shot, rejected by their family, and are told they can't do certain jobs. Being a white heterosexual male, I've never faced any of this (might be different for someone else). However.

I'm not privileged.

Why then did you not use the sentence: I'm not better off.

Otherwise you're just taking the connotations the word privileged has gathered over hundreds of years and just going 'whoops' and dumping them into a completely different meaning.

Actually you are, the word has always meant a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. You desire it to mean something else.

I thought privilege had more than one meaning, at least that's what you've been telling me. Which is why I didn't use better off because I was using a different meaning for privilege (apparently).

And I'm pretty sure privilege and right have always meant different things. You the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to speak your mind, you have the right to keep and bear arms, fight for our right to party, etc.

Mate, there are only so many circles we can do here.

I agree.

Let me know if you disagree, but this is the argument I think you are trying to present:


"Not being discriminated for sexuality, gender, or race is a civil liberty. One that I feel every person on earth is entitled to. The condition of humanity does not currently nor ever has lived up to these ideals. The ethical righteousness of these civil liberties must however be fought for to become legal rights and not just moral dreams. The world can be a much better place without these discriminations.

One such discrimination that personally affects me is based on that entitlement not being fully achieved. I am better off within these legal liberties, while some are not. While not all betterment is of the legal nature nor all disadvantage quantifiable. My entitlement should not be used against me within the greater fight for civil liberties for humanity.

Please recognize that I am human as well, and we can fight to eradicate all forms discrimination and work for moral, ethical, and legal civil liberties together.

That is the dream. Am I right to want and believe in this?"

Is that about right?

I agree with the message you posted (I think), but that was not my quite argument.

I think the disconnect here is that I'm arguing that me not being discriminated against by bigoted people in certain situations is a, uh, civil liberty that all should have, and having that does not make one "privileged" (adjective). The rest of my OP falls into what what you said (I think).

 

[kuolonen]

Alright, that's bullshit right there, at least the "man" part. People are dicks to men a LOT more than to women. Go to any bar and look at how women are treated vs. men. Go to any prison or divorce court. Go to any city slum. People are dicks to everyone. Only difference is that women/black people/ect get protections and we don't.

That's the most inane nonsense I've ever heard.

You realize one out of every four women in America will be raped right? I'll believe that "people are dicks to everyone" when the same number of men suffer.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

2013 it was more than twice as likely to be a victim of homicide compared to being a female. Offenders were more often male against both sexes, but you talked about suffering the same amount if I remember correctly? Unless you believe in shared responsibility of guilt by virtue of whether or not your genitalia hangs, leading into the victims of having said hanging genitalia not having right to complain, in which case I fear there is not much of debate to be had. Reg

Oh and you said before something about having it better by being white? 3,005 victims were white, 2,491 were black or African american.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

And women are starting to lose their 'privileged' position as no. 1 rape victims. Considering that the bar to report rape is higher for men than for women, they might already have.

TLR: Americans, your country is made of rape and violence. Have fun.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

If I'm going to make one small dip into something that could be a horrible mess or a rational discussion (I'm only up the second page so far), it would to show the main reason people don't like being called privileged or disadvantaged, and it's because they convey slightly different meanings.

First, the base line. Let's go with houses:

0 = You own a house.

Now, privileged:

1 = You own a big house, far above what the norm or baseline is.

And disadvantage:

-1 = You don't own a house (or potentially a bad, old, broken etc. one)

Now there's a few reasons why people would be upset with using different terms, and it's that people say that someone who has a house:
Ted has a house = 0
Is privileged compared to:
Bob doesn't have a house = -1

The problem with this thinking is that it puts Ted as some kind of special privileged person even though he only has the norm, an ordinary house. When what should be said is that Bob is disadvantaged and should be brought up to the baseline of owning a home. There are of course then the way that people use privileged to try and make your arguments not count "because you are privileged" while they would argue they just have the baseline of rights/houses/money etc. There's also the idea that when someone claims you are privileged that your achievements are not worthwhile or as worthwhile as someone else who "wasn't privileged".

It's the same thing as when you and a friend play a game of basketball. You smash them in an amazing game where you slam dunk and 360 no hands headbutt the ball into the ring and end up walking out of the game so happy and as you go to highfive your friend for an awesome game and start recounting all of your favourite shots they go, "Yeah, you only did that because you are taller than me."

That kind of behaviour REALLY pisses some people off, myself included. It's just a way to instantly dismiss someone who did something amazing because they are not a carbon copy of you. It's the same feeling many people would get when someone goes "Check your privilege" as the only reply to something they say.

EDIT:

As another note, I saw a very good point further on in the thread, in that while someone being disadvantaged is either not their fault or the fault of a specific person or group, claiming that all people that are X are privileged them puts the blame on them for the lack of privileged of others, and makes it their fault/problem to fix. While a horrible bigot and a lovely puppy walking kitty washing bird training tree growing fish swimming manbearpig could share the same rights, by calling them both privledged means you place equal blame on them as a group.

 

[CrystalShadow]

What would you consider a privilege, then, if being favoured over someone else isn't one?

Something you have that isn't considered human right and yet you are entitled to.

For example, free contraceptives. It's lifestyle enhancement, isn't necessary for normal human functioning and yet people feel entitled to receive it for free. That is basic definition of privilege.

Given what happens in some places, I'd hesitate to call that a good example.

Free contraceptives are an incentive to make people less likely to do things that could seriously ruin their own lives, and generally make society a lot worse off...
The consequences for the individual and society of unexpected pregnancies and such are pretty high, and have an especially large negative effect on poor women. (you can see this with the typical situation in 3rd world countries, where a woman may end up with 10 children...)

That aside, a lot of contraceptives are handed out to help prevent the spread of STD's... Which is generally something that a society doesn't want to encourage spreading. This is as much a benefit to the people around you as it is to you personally... Medical care is expensive, and even in a society where you have to pay for it yourself, if you have a disease, you make it more likely others will get it too...

(This is in fact also a secondary argument for welfare payments, as long as those payments can keep public places mostly free of homeless people. )


Anyway, as to the OP, does it really matter?

Lots of things should be rights, but clearly aren't respected as such much of the time.

And privilege and disadvantage are really two sides of the same thing.

For someone to be at a disadvantage, inherently implies someone else has an advantage.
And in some cases, there is an argument to be made that the system is deliberately designed to maintain those biases.

Slavery isn't fair to the slaves, but it gained quite a bit for the slave owners that had nothing to do with rights... And were certainly things they didn't really deserve.

Wealth... Seems to carry power out of all proportion to what a person deserves.

Sure, you might say "I worked hard to become wealthy". But note that even if that is true, your wealth, no matter how you earned it, also earns you a huge amount of undeserved influence, and can let you easily do things a poorer person would struggle to, or let you get away with things a poorer person probably wouldn't.


That influence can hardly be called a 'right' it is merely a side-effect of the wealth... And it seems at least in part that certain wealthy people have gradually been using their disproportionate influence to change both the culture and governments that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
That this is even possible speaks of the privilege wealth brings, because in a democracy, it is completely out of proportion to the influence any one person has an innate right to have.

The power balance between men and women that used to exist (the present situation is much less clear), meant a woman basically had very few rights, and the system forced them to be dependent on a male to get by. They had no choice in this. Now, sure, that's a disadvantage to women, but this system seemed to be deliberately enforced largely to benefit men.
Deliberately fighting to keep another group at a disadvantage can hardly suggest what you have going on is a 'right'. Not to mention that if balancing out this disadvantage would require making your situation slightly worse than it was, can it be argued that you had the right to keep the same advantage you always did? (Even though that's impossible to maintain without intentionally creating a disadvantage for another group)
Could it not be argued that the rights you have above and beyond what you could expect to have if no-one else was at a disadvantaged compared to you, are in fact, privileges?
A benefit you can only have due to someone else not having it can hardly be called a right, after all...


Anyway, this is starting to give me a headache... I hate topics like this, to be quite honest...

 

[peruvianskys]

2013 it was more than twice as likely to be a victim of homicide compared to being a female. Offenders were more often male against both sexes, but you talked about suffering the same amount if I remember correctly? Unless you believe in shared responsibility of guilt by virtue of whether or not your genitalia hangs, leading into the victims of having said hanging genitalia not having right to complain, in which case I fear there is not much of debate to be had. Reg

Actually, it does matter - the fact that men kill other men is *very* different from the fact that men also sometimes kill women.

Oh and you said before something about having it better by being white? 3,005 victims were white, 2,491 were black or African american.

...

You do realize that African Americans make up about 13% of our population, right? Which means that black folks are massively *overrepresented* in these statistics, which of course proves my point.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

And women are starting to lose their 'privileged' position as no. 1 rape victims. Considering that the bar to report rape is higher for men than for women, they might already have.

And who assaults them?

Other men.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip...

"Not being discriminated for sexuality, gender, or race is a civil liberty. One that I feel every person on earth is entitled to. The condition of humanity does not currently nor ever has lived up to these ideals. The ethical righteousness of these civil liberties must however be fought for to become legal rights and not just moral dreams. The world can be a much better place without these discriminations.

One such discrimination that personally affects me is based on that entitlement not being fully achieved. I am better off within these legal liberties, while some are not. While not all betterment is of the legal nature nor all disadvantage quantifiable. My entitlement should not be used against me within the greater fight for civil liberties for humanity.

Please recognize that I am human as well, and we can fight to eradicate all forms discrimination and work for moral, ethical, and legal civil liberties together.

That is the dream. Am I right to want and believe in this?"

I agree with the message you posted (I think), but that was not my quite argument.

I think the disconnect here is that I'm arguing that me not being discriminated against by bigoted people in certain situations is a, uh, civil liberty that all should have, and having that does not make one "privileged" (adjective). The rest of my OP falls into what what you said (I think).

You are free to edit that to your liking if you want. I would like to see how that looks.

However any further editing voids my guarantee of "check your privilege" repentant.

Please note I never offered "ad hominem" repellent unedited or otherwise.

If you do use (unedited) an understanding of the word entitlement would come in handy.

And the words of Martin Luther King Jr. can potentially become "problematic" as is, possibly more so edited.

That being said. I will just leave you with some words from my first post.

"I want to use words wrong and everyone should make the world better so I can", is pretty weak. How do I vote if you are right or wrong about that? On one hand if everyone contributed to making the world better, I could live with you using words wrong provided you are not causing more harm than good. One the other hand I doubt such noble ideals when the motivation for the improvement of the world is based off of wanting to use words incorrectly and not be called out on it.

Edit: In the interest of ethics I should point out some mistakes I have made that have bothered me. I address this to everyone but you especially considering they were replies to you.

In post 107, I said: Yes it does mean that. In response to a homeless man with shoes meaning he is privileged versus a homeless man without shoes.

It does mean that but it also does not contextually sometimes. But I did not state the possibility that it did not necessarily mean that. Nor did I offer any other context until later in the post, where I make another mistake.

I said: Actually you are, the word has always meant a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. You desire it to mean something else.

I should not have used the word always, when I meant: since the inception of the word it's primary definition has been a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.

And being that that was the only context I presented in the post-it makes my original mistake of yes it does mean that, wrong not just a mistake.

I should have stayed away from always and offered correct context.

Being that those are some things I accuse you of, it's only right that I admit it and say I am sorry.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think the disconnect here is that I'm arguing that me not being discriminated against by bigoted people in certain situations is a, uh, civil liberty that all should have, and having that does not make one "privileged" (adjective). The rest of my OP falls into what what you said (I think).

You can't have someone being discriminated against without someone else being discriminated for, though.

For example, let's say you have 3 people or groups, A, B and C. C is being discriminated against, time or funding or resources or whatever that they should be getting is going to A.

Now, you could argue that B isn't privileged, they are just getting an absence of discrimination, and things would be much the same whether it happened to C or not.

A, however, most definitely is. They are getting a benefit from the discrimination. It's not merely an absence of discrimination.

If someone doesn't get a job because of, say, homophobia, then that's a job that someone else gets instead. If money isn't spent in an area because of racism, it's likely to be spent somewhere else.

 

[kuolonen]

Actually, it does matter - the fact that men kill other men is *very* different from the fact that men also sometimes kill women.
.

Right, that clears up that then. If you feel that way there's absolutely no point to try discuss it further, as we will never see eye-to-eye.

 

[EvilRoy]

As a mathematician I always find these discussions absurd.
One side is arguing "7 is 5 less than 12."
While the other is arguing "No, you're wrong, 12 is 5 more than 7!"

Both are true at the same time. It's just a matter of perspective.

Think of the negative numbers.
If x < y, they still can be:
- both below zero
- y below zero while x is at zero
- y below zero while x is above zero
- y at zero while x is above zero
- both above zero

Zero is the norm, the way the things should be. Now if someone kills people and gets away with it because of his social status and friends in government, that's high above zero.
If someone gets severe criminal punishment for a legal activity because of his or her political views that's pretty below zero.

Think of it this way:
What you define as 0 is down to your personal opinion and situation.
Someone starving in a African village will have a completely different 0 to the CEO of a major corporation.
As such there is no objective "0" only comparisons. Which still means the argument is the difference between "You've got 4 less than me." "No! You've got 4 more than me."

Its just a language thing.

Think of it this way - I work with a client focused on making flamingos, the two major components of which is flam and mingos. If I say "we currently have an excess of flam with respect to mingos, leading to product wastage" my implication is that we need less flam, but if I say "we currently have a shortage of mingos, resulting in flam wastage" then my implication is that we need more mingos.

In one case I am implying that we need less of something, in the other more. I think that is what the op is trying to get at anyway - calling somebody privileged (ie saying they have 4 more) implies that they should have less, while calling somebody disadvantaged (ie saying they have 4 less) implies that they should have more.

 

[DayDark]

I hate the way privilege is now used as a way of attacking someone, check your privilege! Then shut up! as if having a good life is something to be ashamed of. It puts the spotlight on the wrong thing, I shouldn't check my privilege, I should check out this groups disadvantages, this groups suffering, the problem isn't that I was born white, or in a country with free education, it's that some people was born a woman in the wrong culture, and aren't allowed to drive or get educated at all.

It's not about what I got, it's about what you lack.

 

[RedDeadFred]

It's sort of just semantics (not quite, but close), but I do like your view on this quite a bit more OP since it carries more of a connotation of needing to fix society rather than accepting where we are at.

 

[Kolyarut]

Its just a language thing.

Think of it this way - I work with a client focused on making flamingos, the two major components of which is flam and mingos. If I say "we currently have an excess of flam with respect to mingos, leading to product wastage" my implication is that we need less flam, but if I say "we currently have a shortage of mingos, resulting in flam wastage" then my implication is that we need more mingos.

In one case I am implying that we need less of something, in the other more. I think that is what the op is trying to get at anyway - calling somebody privileged (ie saying they have 4 more) implies that they should have less, while calling somebody disadvantaged (ie saying they have 4 less) implies that they should have more.

This is a glorious post!

All the talk of privilege as opposed to disadvantage all to often results in a race to the bottom, as we saw a particularly galling example of in page one of this thread. If someone's on fire, the last thing they want to hear is "yeah, you're on fire, but you could also be covered in bees", as if they're supposed to appreciate the fire more somehow. Being on fire and being covered in bees are both problems - maybe we need to be investing in fire extinguishers and bugspray rather than guilting the flammable for their lack of bees.

And frankly, once you start down that road, everyone's privileged to some degree and their opinions are therefore worthless. "Sure, you're on fire, covered in bees, have lost three kidneys and your children's lungs are infested with live cicadas, but did you consider you could also be allergic to oxygen and vomit at the sight of the colour yellow? Geez, have a little consideration for others why don't you?"

 

[Thaluikhain]

I hate the way privilege is now used as a way of attacking someone, check your privilege! Then shut up! as if having a good life is something to be ashamed of. It puts the spotlight on the wrong thing, I shouldn't check my privilege, I should check out this groups disadvantages, this groups suffering, the problem isn't that I was born white, or in a country with free education, it's that some people was born a woman in the wrong culture, and aren't allowed to drive or get educated at all.

It's not about what I got, it's about what you lack.

That's assuming that a lack of discrimination comes with a lack of bias about discrimination. Certainly, people should check out other groups disadvantages, but unfortunately, there's far too many people that assume that not suffering those disadvantages makes them more qualified to talk about it. Even with the best intentions, that is an easy mistake to make, and if that person wants to avoid repeating it, it helps if someone points it out by telling them to check their privilege.

 

[Godhead]

The common sense of the OP is oppressing me, and that's racist.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If someone's on fire, the last thing they want to hear is "yeah, you're on fire, but you could also be covered in bees", as if they're supposed to appreciate the fire more somehow. Being on fire and being covered in bees are both problems - maybe we need to be investing in fire extinguishers and bugspray rather than guilting the flammable for their lack of bees.

Sure...but the person who is on fire doesn't get to decide that being covered in bees isn't a problem, that fire extinguishers would solve everything.

And frankly, once you start down that road, everyone's privileged to some degree and their opinions are therefore worthless.

Yes. Everyone's opinions are worth less (not worthless, worth less) on some issues. If you have a straight black man and a gay white man, one of them is likely to know more about being gay, and the other about being black. A woman is likely to know more than either about being a woman.

Privilege doesn't mean your opinion is worthless, in the general sense, it means you've got a limited experience with one particular form of discrimination.

 

[verdant monkai]

I think the idea of human rights are only really applicable to an ideal world.

As everyone says "Life isn't fair", so for example lets say everyone has a right to clean water and a job, there are people in impoverished countries where there are no jobs let alone clean water. They may have a "right" to it but it isn't there. A lot of life boils down to luck. Some people are lucky enough to be born in places where clean water and jobs are possible to obtain, but for many people they just can't have these things because they don't live near them and they physically cannot get to them. Human rights are not applicable to these people because their situation will not allow it.
As for how people treat each other, I agree thinks like rape and discrimination aren't good. But humans themselves are not capable of entirely expunging these things from our society.

What I'm saying is NO ONE has a right to any of these things. Some people are just lucky enough to have them. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and help people less fortunate than us though.

Human rights are great but they are a bit "kumbaya lets all hold hands and come together as one people" they are unrealistic but nice if you get my meaning. I have respect for the people who strive for these ideals, however the human race just isn't going to change all that much.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think the idea of human rights are only really applicable to an ideal world.

As everyone says "Life isn't fair", so for example lets say everyone has a right to clean water and a job, there are people in impoverished countries where there are no jobs let alone clean water. They may have a "right" to it but it isn't there. A lot of life boils down to luck. Some people are lucky enough to be born in places where clean water and jobs are possible to obtain, but for many people they just can't have these things because they don't live near them and they physically cannot get to them. Human rights are not applicable to these people because their situation will not allow it.
As for how people treat each other, I agree thinks like rape and discrimination aren't good. But humans themselves are not capable of entirely expunging these things from our society.

What I'm saying is NO ONE has a right to any of these things. Some people are just lucky enough to have them. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and help people less fortunate than us though.

Human rights are great but they are a bit "kumbaya lets all hold hands and come together as one people" they are unrealistic but nice if you get my meaning. I have respect for the people who strive for these ideals, however the human race just isn't going to change all that much.

Well...yes, but then again, big improvements have been made. The people striving for total equality aren't likely to get it, no, but they are likely to get things better than they were, which is not to be sniffed at.

 

[DayDark]

snip

That's assuming that a lack of discrimination comes with a lack of bias about discrimination. Certainly, people should check out other groups disadvantages, but unfortunately, there's far too many people that assume that not suffering those disadvantages makes them more qualified to talk about it. Even with the best intentions, that is an easy mistake to make, and if that person wants to avoid repeating it, it helps if someone points it out by telling them to check their privilege.

I don't usually see this, at least I haven't encountered anyone thinking themselves more qualified, but truth be told I don't engage in many battles strictly discussing social issues, where I guess most of these people will be highlighted, I just know they exist. I'm guessing when this is encountered it's because they consider themselves an outside voice? and thus not coloured? I wouldn't call that more qualified, an outside can be valuable sure, but you need both views to get the bigger picture.

 

[visiblenoise]

I think you have a solid point...better, and more positive, to assume that the default state is that everyone deserves rights, as opposed to calling those that do actually have them "special/privileged". But it's still just semantics.