Reclaiming SJW

[Saetha]

And they're the ones you're erasing and writing off as a "gendered problem" because they might have the same gender as their attacker.

Uh...I pointed out that a statement you made suggested a gendered problem. I didn't make an argument about it one way or the other, let alone "write something off".

Don't let that blunt your righteous indignation, though.

I said that the number of men raped in prison is pretty high, and you said that means the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, so it's still a gendered problem. You took my statement about the rate of victimization, and assumed it was also indicative of victimizers, and then stated that your assumption means it's still a gendered problem. I never said anything about the number of men who raped, only those who are raped. When you made a faulty assumption based on that statement, I pointed out the flaw in that thinking.

Your exact words were that I "demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of rapists are men." I did no such thing. That's an assumption you made, and thus one I sought to correct.

 

[LetalisK]

Couldn't I say the same thing about you telling people to check their privilege? How much do you actually know about that person, especially on the internet? Maybe a couple bits of demographic data? Or maybe not even that and it's based purely on the opinion they hold? Besides, isn't people having a skewed perspective because of their life experience the problem? Or rather, that they don't recognize that their perspective is skewed.

If it was based solely on their opinion, then yes, I'm making an assumption.

If I know what demographics they are in, then I know certain demographics that they aren't in, though.

And you're still making assumptions based on those demographics. Racist and sexist ones at that and I don't mean the "omg white men are so oppressed". By knowing "certain demographics that they aren't in" your making a ton of assumptions, out right stereotypes in many cases, about what that "certain demographics" life experience is and while that can be applicable on a general statistical level(I'm not trying to deny that there is an issue with white privilege here after all), on the personal level it's the very heart of racism and sexism. Just because someone is a certain race or sex doesn't mean they hold a special privileged or ignorant view inherently. Their life experience determines that.

Next time there is a wealth inequality discussion and you tell someone to check their privilege -because- they're white, go find a black person you don't really know and introduce him as a ghetto subject matter expert. Because that's the implication you're making when you base it on demographics rather than their actual experience.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just because someone is a certain race or sex doesn't mean they hold a special privileged or ignorant view inherently. Their life experience determines that.

Yes, and they will experience life as a person of that race or sex.

A white person will not know what life is like as a PoC, because they aren't one.

Next time there is a wealth inequality discussion and you tell someone to check their privilege -because- they're white, go find a black person you don't really know and introduce him as a ghetto subject matter expert. Because that's the implication you're making when you base it on demographics rather than their actual experience.

Not at all.

Now, it is true that if I was equating race and class, and people very often do that, then that would be a very important point, one that people need to be more aware of. Only, that's not what I've been saying.

A white person is, of course, not necessarily wealthy (or straight, or able-bodied or any number of other things). But they are necessarily white. They will have white privilege, they will not have to deal with the racism a PoC does. They will not have that experience.

 

[LetalisK]

Just because someone is a certain race or sex doesn't mean they hold a special privileged or ignorant view inherently. Their life experience determines that.

Yes, and they will experience life as a person of that race or sex.

A white person will not know what life is like as a PoC, because they aren't one.

Next time there is a wealth inequality discussion and you tell someone to check their privilege -because- they're white, go find a black person you don't really know and introduce him as a ghetto subject matter expert. Because that's the implication you're making when you base it on demographics rather than their actual experience.

Not at all.

Now, it is true that if I was equating race and class, and people very often do that, then that would be a very important point, one that people need to be more aware of. Only, that's not what I've been saying.

A white person is, of course, not necessarily wealthy (or straight, or able-bodied or any number of other things). But they are necessarily white. They will have white privilege, they will not have to deal with the racism a PoC does. They will not have that experience.

First, you're misusing the term white privilege. It is not something a white person has inherently, all the time, or even at all. White privilege is when someone of greater means assumes their circumstances were the norm and have difficulty empathizing (I might be thinking sympathizing). "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "Why can't Mexicans simply...." are typical examples of this. It's given the prefix "white" because guess who is typically the offender.

Secondly, nothing you said is wrong about the advantages of being white. Generally. When looking at society as a whole. But what we have been talking about is when you bring it down to the individual level. Unless you actually know something about the person's life, you are making assumptions about them based on their race and have no authority to dictate to them how their race has affected their life. You can only speak in generalities. Again, go find a black person you don't know and try to tell him how his race has personally affected him.

 

[DarkRawen]

Just because someone is a certain race or sex doesn't mean they hold a special privileged or ignorant view inherently. Their life experience determines that.

Yes, and they will experience life as a person of that race or sex.

A white person will not know what life is like as a PoC, because they aren't one.

Next time there is a wealth inequality discussion and you tell someone to check their privilege -because- they're white, go find a black person you don't really know and introduce him as a ghetto subject matter expert. Because that's the implication you're making when you base it on demographics rather than their actual experience.

Not at all.

Now, it is true that if I was equating race and class, and people very often do that, then that would be a very important point, one that people need to be more aware of. Only, that's not what I've been saying.

A white person is, of course, not necessarily wealthy (or straight, or able-bodied or any number of other things). But they are necessarily white. They will have white privilege, they will not have to deal with the racism a PoC does. They will not have that experience.

There's something that bothers me about the reasoning of what you're saying. Yes, it makes sense that someone will experience life as a certain (or several) races, and of that sex, and all that. However, they will also experience their life based on their family, their nationality, their personality, hobbies, sense of fashion, what they like and dislike, choices, and so much more. Why are you so stuck up on race and sex and wealth? Why is it so important? There is a lot more to people than that. :/

Yes, thinking about it is important, but in the end, using it to determine something becomes judging based on sex, race and wealth... I thought that was what you were trying to change.

 

[Thaluikhain]

First, you're misusing the term white privilege. It is not something a white person has inherently, all the time, or even at all. White privilege is when someone of greater means assumes their circumstances were the norm and have difficulty empathizing (I might be thinking sympathizing). "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "Why can't Mexicans simply...." are typical examples of this. It's given the prefix "white" because guess who is typically the offender.

Er...no, that is not how the term is generally used.

Privilege is something that dominant or favoured groups have. It can lead to thinking that their circumstances are the norm, and create difficulty emphasising, but people can recognise this and avoid it. They cannot avoid their privilege without changing their circumstance (such as moving to another society where privilege works differently).

Secondly, nothing you said is wrong about the advantages of being white. Generally. When looking at society as a whole. But what we have been talking about is when you bring it down to the individual level. Unless you actually know something about the person's life, you are making assumptions about them based on their race and have no authority to dictate to them how their race has affected their life. You can only speak in generalities. Again, go find a black person you don't know and try to tell him how his race has personally affected him.

I can say, based on their race, that they have not lived their life as someone from another race.

I can therefore say, based on their race, that they have not experienced the way that society treats another race. Maybe the way their race is treated is similar, but if society deems them to be another race, it won't be the same.

Why are you so stuck up on race and sex and wealth? Why is it so important? There is a lot more to people than that.

It happens to be what is being discussed in this particular thread though.

Yes, thinking about it is important, but in the end, using it to determine something becomes judging based on sex, race and wealth... I thought that was what you were trying to change.

No, it's become that a long time ago. That's the problem.

 

[Namehere]

I never said these issues disproportionately effect women. Did you read what I wrote there? If you aren't a girl in one of these schools Boko Haram raids, what do you think they do to you? Remember translated, as I understand it, their name means: ?No Western Education.? Education can be dangerous to certain types of people and organizations. So, what do you do with 'western educated' boys? The enemies of your future! You kill them - they don't sell as well as women do. Women can be sold off and kept in line by the brutal sort of men that would keep them. Boys are dangerous; there are life lessons for a warlord from Conan the Barbarian.

We have ignored male prostitutes in Canada's efforts to reform its prostitution laws. We've poorly treated the female sex workers who came forward, but at least they were avowed as a vested interest. My country's national media seems to believe that there are no male prostitutes in Canada, even though it also believes more of our female sex trade workers come in from foreign countries rather then the other side of the tracks. It's absurd and those who believe it would lead sex workers in general into more and more atrocious situations. At least we know women are out there.

As for a male oppressive society... This is thoroughly offensive. It's the kind of statement I'd expect out of a misogynist. I'm not accusing you of misogyny but it certainly sounds misogynistic to me. To discount the roll of women in political machinations of the past is purely foolish. If you mean to say that 'all' women of any time were never fully empowered. True enough. But the same 'oppressive machine' that didn't empower 'all women' in Eleanor of Aquitaine's time, also wasn't exactly gentle with the men. All men were never empowered either. This is a human problem with politics and power struggles, not exclusively a gender problem. Of course those pulling the levers of power would much rather you hurled complaints at powerless people, then grumbled those powerless masses - like you - aren't doing enough! That way they're sure they'll never have to redress disparities in rights, freedoms and powers. Surely you're familiar with the term 1%, as a reference to the 'wealthy' - not criminally inclined bikers. This doesn't mean 'men' have it easy, it means the men in the 1% have it really, really easy. It means our political leaders have it pretty easy. But just because Obama is a guy as opposed to a woman is no more guarantee or even really pittance of hope that any other man will become president of the US then it is a guarantee of another black president. I think its fair to say that if Nixon was the only guy who could go to China, Obama might be the only black politician of this age who can go to the white house. Trying to confuse every black person in America with having all the rights and powers of the president is insane. Even if you're only trying to say that one black man's as good as another and anyone could have made it to the white house. It just isn't true or they'd have been there. And the same applies to mistaking men in the 1% wealthy with men in general, from any era in history.

What do I suggest you do about this? Nothing. Do NOTHING! Go to school, experience some more of existence as a human, and keep thinking, but take no action. If you see the flaws in your initial idea and how vast they are, you must know you've got a lot to fill in before offering practical solutions to frankly more then one issue that's been around longer then all the world's flags. After all the only thing more dangerous then a person whose read a book, is the person who only read half of it.

Finally; sorry for the delay in posting this but my schedule's been broadsided and resembles a champion marksman's winning clay pigeon at the moment.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Women have equal rights, its illegal to pay them less, it's illegal to discriminate on gender/race/orientation when hiring. Everybody votes and everybody can sit at the front of the bus. Feminism is over they got everything they wanted. And rightly so. But anything beyond that is victim portrayal and looking for special treatment. I always find that the male feminists I met do very badly with women, and the hardline female feminists tend to be very unpopular with men. Stereotypes eh.

Not to get finnicky ... but you can, legally, be fired in 34 States (US) based on gender identity and gender variance. And you can still be legally discriminated against in the workplace in 29 (US) States, based solely on sexuality. As a medical doctor in the state of New York you can deny life-saving medical services to transgender patients.... and unfortunately the list goes on and on...

Now that's the US, but it doesn't take very long to see inequities in the UK, Australia, Canada, and pretty much the entirety of the West. I'm sure even the most lacklustre of google queries will result in a treasure trove of resources.

I only discussed gender equality because this weeks hot topic that wont fuck off. I'm sure we will be back to race or sexual orientation in a month or so to start again. So no I think the term has been well and truly tarnished by everyone who identifies as an SJW because they do nothing and get no where.

The only social divide I think still significantly exists is wealth and yet no one ever has a circle jerk about that.

So you're only a TRUE protestor if you've already won? Got it. And plenty of people have protested wealth disparity. In Australia, it seems like debates concerning income and wealth divides are broadcast across tv screens every hour. And it doesn't take a hell of a lot for a union to get antsy about some form of government legislation or industry-wide legal reform.

I wouldn't call myself a 'SJW' ... as it's a retarded label that would seemingly make trivial what are true transgressions against basic human rights towards self-determination. I would, at first, think they are refering to Nietzsche's 'Warrior' within Thus Spake Zarathustra. You know, the demolition of religion, uniform and soldiery to be replaced by individuals who fight (though not merely on a battlefield, but in politics, business, science, etc) of their own will. To be as if lords of their own virtue.

Regardless, people protest against wealth. Dare I say, my most immediate experience concerning civil protest was all about wages and rates of pay within my industry.

 

[LetalisK]

Er...no, that is not how the term is generally used.

And most people who use it generally don't understand it.

I can say, based on their race, that they have not lived their life as someone from another race.

I can therefore say, based on their race, that they have not experienced the way that society treats another race. Maybe the way their race is treated is similar, but if society deems them to be another race, it won't be the same.

Edit: I misread that, so let me back up.

I don't quite understand what this has to do with what we're talking about, but if you're implying that personal experience is requisite to comment on how a race is treated, I would not only ask if you see the irony of this argument considering your previous statements, but also wonder why you're commenting at all in that case. If you're not implying that, then I'd ask for you to clarify how it relates to your argument.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I said that the number of men raped in prison is pretty high, and you said that means the overwhelming majority of rapists are men, so it's still a gendered problem.

You, you said the number of men raped inside prisons is significantly higher than the number of people raped anywhere, and I said that statistic would seem to imply that an overwhelming number of rapists are men.

When you made a faulty assumption based on that statement, I pointed out the flaw in that thinking.

It wasn't an assumption, it was an observation based on limited information. I actually appreciate you providing clarity on it in the form of additional statistics, which was all you needed to do. Where things go sideways is when you assume internet forum "You're with me or against me" mode and sneeringly imply I'm hand waving male rape victims because I questioned a statement you made.

I still think you're being somewhat selective with your data and not viewing it contextually, mind you. Things I'd like to know...

Similarly, a lot of kids in juvy report being sexually victimized by women - 94% of victims abused by staff members reported a female attacker

I expect this mirrors prison assault, where the gender of the assaulter is primarily opposite gender. What is the ratio of male to female offenders in juvenile detention? For that matter, what is the ratio for male to female inmates in the US? Is this a "male rape" problem specifically, as you imply, or an institutional problem with prisons, where inmates are routinely abused by guards regardless of gender?

Several reports on sexual abuse in schools show that those investigated or disciplined for sexual misconduct are mostly men (80-90%)

Can you source this statistic? I don't even doubt it, I suspect it is correct, but you've been very diligent about sourcing statistics.

The actual percentage is probably even bigger, considering how people speculate that men don't come forward with this stuff.

People also speculate that women don't "come forward with this stuff". Given the general respect shown to rape victims by the legal system or society at large, neither gender can really be blamed for being hesitant to come forward. Women are slut shamed or have their judgment questioned, and men are laughed at.

The number of reported male rape in prison is actually larger than the number of reported rape period for general society.

The rate of reported rape (sexual victimization, by those studies, I realize that "rape" can be employed as a blanket term in some lobbies and that you're probably doing the same here for effect) actually seems dramatically higher in prison than in "general society", possibly because it's institutionalized.

I bring all this up because no one cares.

Lots of people care. I know a great many people who have spoken on the issue passionately. Ironically, all of them women aside from myself, but I imagine a great many men I know would feel the same, because I know a lot of thoughtful, intelligent, liberal men. What I find unusual about your stance on this issue is how combative/accusatory it is. You seem to take a very zero sum attitude towards male/female rape.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

ERROR 404: DISCUSSION NOT FOUND. Ok since this has gone on for 5 pages I can't really say that, can I? I'm not sure how doing the internet equivalent of screaming at a brick wall qualifies you to be called a "warrior" though.

 

[Quadocky]

I think the real issue here is that people are afraid to stand up for things and accept all the possibility that people may not like you for doing so. Don't blame the people with 'head-mates', blame your own petty obsession with the oh so fragile nature of the supposedly honorable title of 'Social Justice Warrior'

"So, this is definitely the topic of the week, and I'm about to throw in my two cents."

And stuff like this, the projection of personal problems as 'topics' STOP Doing that please.

 

[katml]

I agree with many of the above points regarding the connotations of the term "Social Justice Warrior." The use of warrior comes across as self-aggrandizing, and the term social justice originally referred to something else. To more accurately convey what you're fighting for, you could use something like "Equality Activist." It describes your goals (I hope), and it doesn't carry the baggage that SJW does.

Secondly, why is the phrase "check your privilege" necessary? Why not say a variant of "Have you considered how your privileges could affect your perceptions?" Yes, it's longer, but (1) it doesn't carry such baggage and (2) it isn't phrased as an order, unlike "check your privilege." People generally don't like taking orders. Additionally, it's clearer -- it wouldn't elicit any of the "Where exactly do I get my privilege checked?" responses (those were funny, though).

Also, a bad wrap is something you can get at McDonald's. The term SJW has a bad rap (think rap sheet, and you'll remember).

 

[KingDragonlord]

Social Justice Warrior is the wrong term.

Warriors do battle but they also understand that there are times and places where you lay down your weapons. Things you keep sacred. Places where people can just be people. Social Justice Warriors apparently don't get that which is why they're in places like this fighting over things like games.

 

[rbstewart7263]

tl;dr I will not stop referring to myself as a Social Justice Warrior because of ignorant shitheads who wouldn't know social justice if it slapped them in the face. I will continue to tell privileged folk to check their privilege despite the bad wrap that phrase has gotten, and I will continue to fight the good fight with words and deeds no matter how often the ignorant try to pull me down!! Huzzah!!

How does one go about checking ones privilege? I would assume there is some sort of ranking system but I dont know? I might go down to the registry office and ask for my privilege ranking

The way I see it, it's just about being aware that you don't face discrimination that others might. It's not a "your life will never be difficult" accusation.

For example, I'm white, straight, well-educated, from a lower middle class Catholic family, I'm not Catholic but that's irrelevant, and I live in a society dominated by white, educated, straight, predominantly Catholic people. I went to schools and worked in professions that were mostly comprised of people from this group.

Chances are, if I lived and worked here for the rest of my life, I would never experience discrimination, unconscious or otherwise, based on my religious background, my social status, my sexuality or my race.

Checking my privilege is about acknowledging that others do.
Some people genuinely have the mindset that if they haven't personally experienced discrimination, it doesn't exist or that it's something people can just get over if they work harder and this is largely something that comes from a place of ignorance because it's not something they've experienced. It doesn't, or at least shouldn't, imply that it's my fault or that I chose for things to be this way, it's just about being sensitive to difficulties you don't experience.

OP: I see where your coming from but Social Justice Warrior is a pretty cringey term.

I don't think I could ever identify with a term that has "warrior" tacked on at the end, it's seems a bit disingenuous and full of self-importance.

I think ninja warrior counts if you win but... gosh now that I think about it Even if I won 5 times I wouldnt tell the lady at the bar that I was a....NINNNNJAAA WARRRRIORRRRRR!

OT: Hey your aware of both ends of the spectrum thats important. Most people ignore that feminists can be bigots or they ignore that they can be reasonable.

Ah but what a conundrum eh? Your attached to the term yet were it not for that attachment you could call yourself something else and call it a day. What to do

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't quite understand what this has to do with what we're talking about, but if you're implying that personal experience is requisite to comment on how a race is treated, I would not only ask if you see the irony of this argument considering your previous statements, but also wonder why you're commenting at all in that case. If you're not implying that, then I'd ask for you to clarify how it relates to your argument.

I seem not to be explaining my point very well, I'll try again.

It's not a requisite merely to comment (if that was the case "check your privilege" would be replaced with "don't ever say anything"), but personal experience is going to affect people's understanding of things. Not having experience with something is going to limit someone's understanding. It doesn't mean they have no understanding, just less than they would have.

Very often we see people claiming that problem X doesn't really affect group Y, because they aren't in group Y, aren't personally affected by problem X, so they themselves don't see it. Now, that's not to say they couldn't gain an understanding of X by listening to people in Y or anything, there's a lot that they can do to educate themselves. But they have to go and make the effort, it's not a given that they will have any understanding of the situation.

If I wanted to know about how gay people were treated in a particular society, for example, I'd go and listen to what gay people in that society were saying. Preferably I'd listen to a number and try to work out a consensus. It'd be less effective for me to listen to straight people, I wouldn't be getting the information first hand.

On a slight tangent to this, though, are books published by straight people who've pretended to be gay for a bit, those are fairly popular. People have, consciously or not, assumed that the best way to find out about gay people is to read something a straight person has written, not the many, many things written by gay people. Likewise, the issue of gay jurors being rejected in trials for gay people, as they'd be seen to be biased. If someone was to suggest rejecting straight jurors for straight defendants, they'd be laughed down, because the proponents of that idea see the majority as being the unbiased and objective default.

In this context, saying "check your privilege" isn't (or shouldn't be) telling someone that they can't comment on an issue, it's telling someone that their viewpoint isn't objective, that they are looking at an issue from an outsider's perspective, which is very different from that of people who have to deal with the issue directly. The perspective of someone that doesn't have to deal with an issue isn't automatically the best one to examine it with.

 

[ForumSafari]

In this context, saying "check your privilege" isn't (or shouldn't be) telling someone that they can't comment on an issue, it's telling someone that their viewpoint isn't objective, that they are looking at an issue from an outsider's perspective, which is very different from that of people who have to deal with the issue directly. The perspective of someone that doesn't have to deal with an issue isn't automatically the best one to examine it with.

Though it's worth pointing out that frequently those calling for people to check their privilege also aren't the affected party.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Unless you're killing and risking death for your beliefs don't call yourself a fucking warrior. It is an insult to all who truly fight for their beliefs. I would never consider calling myself a warrior and my ideology advocates revolutionary war, and I would readily fight in such a war in the very unlikely chance one sprung up in my country. Why would I not call myself a warrior? Because I am not engaged in revolutionary conflict now, and have not been at any point in the past, so to call myself an ideological warrior or soldier or fighter or revolutionary or whatever along those lines would be a slap in the face to my comrades abroad who ARE engaged in revolutionary struggle, not to mention all the ideological soldiers of other systems of belief. It is also simply intellectually dishonest.

Call yourself a social justice proponent, supporter, advocate, whatever. Don't call yourself a warrior unless you are fighting a damn war.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

In this context, saying "check your privilege" isn't (or shouldn't be) telling someone that they can't comment on an issue, it's telling someone that their viewpoint isn't objective, that they are looking at an issue from an outsider's perspective, which is very different from that of people who have to deal with the issue directly. The perspective of someone that doesn't have to deal with an issue isn't automatically the best one to examine it with.

Though it's worth pointing out that frequently those calling for people to check their privilege also aren't the affected party.

So it's pretty much a self-insert fan fic? Makes sense.