privilege as a meme

i guess to throw a wrench in this, i don't think it's my place to tell any person (experiencing x oppression) how they should or shouldn't use this language, how polite or impolite they should be etc... like everyone always talks about it like everyone has the same exact goal, but that isn't true, not everyone is super concerned with "winning people over to their side" or "making the world a better place for our chldren's children", some ppl are just fed up and pissed, some people actually want the conversation to end, some people just want to be able to discuss this shit freely with other ppl who are like them etc -- it's not always about trying to win you over

and apart from that some people DO respond well to being yelled at, there's not one grand method that works for everyone

Anyway, people getting defensive about privilege is pretty dumb because if they bothered to stop saying LALALALALLA for long enough to learn about it, it is basically impossible by definition for anyone in a privileged group NOT to benefit. It's academic justification for it not being any individual's fault! We should all be going gladly to that well, because it absolves us of being responsible for benefiting from the qualities we did nothing to earn, up to the point where we start to recognize them and then it IS on each person to think it over from there.

fwiw i agree with this and most of what you've said on this thread. i just think that in practice others using the word seem to work from a different definition to yours, or with a different goal.

i also think the whole "straight white dudes" as a meme isn't that helpful - not in terms of myself by any means, but in the sense that plenty of underprivileged people (at least in uk/europe) are probably straight white dudes.

it removes concern for class which seems to be a key factor that excludes people. that was part of my argument about a cabal of people using the word - i can't speak for the us but ime in the uk i don't think i've ever worked with somebody who wasn't middle class, or came from a poor background, and i've worked with people of many, many diff racial and religious backgrounds.

i'm not trying to make some hierarchy of discrimination - i just think it's a point worth discussing.

also there are things like disability... again not related to someone's race or sexual orientation but a pretty majorly misunderstood and awkward thing to have to deal with, with quite a wide group affected.

this one neat solution that bigots hate!

i also think the whole "straight white dudes" as a meme isn't that helpful - not in terms of myself by any means, but in the sense that plenty of underprivileged people (at least in uk/europe) are probably straight white dudes.

it removes concern for class which seems to be a key factor that excludes people. that was part of my argument about a cabal of people using the word - i can't speak for the us but ime in the uk i don't think i've ever worked with somebody who wasn't middle class, or came from a poor background, and i've worked with people of many, many diff racial and religious backgrounds.

i feel ya man, and like i said upthread we don't really talk about class in america, so maybe privilege is one way of getting at that. but let me point out again that even 'underprivileged straight white dudes' accrue benefits just by being a straight white dude - they don't have to think too hard about going home alone from a late-night party, for example, they can assume that the vast majority of media and advertising is aimed at them, they can shop at their local convenience store without being followed by store personnel, etc. these seem like small things, but when youre on the other side and not privy just by virtue of who you are, they can seem very big. and they dont go away even for poor straight white dudes. now, if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna be lighting a candle for underprivileged straight white dudes

they don't have to think too hard about going home alone from a late-night party, for example, they can assume that the vast majority of media and advertising is aimed at them, they can shop at their local convenience store without being followed by store personnel, etc.

in the US is there like a negative stereotype of the poor white person? cos i can imagine some underprivileged white people (or just you know, less well off people of any racial background) being singled out based on how they look or looking like a stereotypically poor person.

also they may have to worry about being beaten up or whatever, like if someone lives in a particularly dangerous area.

they can assume that the vast majority of media and advertising is aimed at them

not necessarily, if you're particularly marginalised due to how much money you have.

sorry i'm not trying to do that thing of like "refuting" you, just sort of trying to see how money factors into the argument.

well i think probably the closest thing we have to a 'chav' stereotype or w/e is 'white trash.' i can't really tell you any more about that, except that eminem was one

again... you're pointing out situations that might deterioriate the benefits that accrue to someone by their basic identity in the culture, whereas most ppl in this thread have been pointing out that those benefits accrue ipso facto of their identity. sure, some poor straight white dude might live in a dangerous area, but that's not really comparable to the threat of sexual assault that women p much have to account for at all levels of society. i don't really get your point about not having money to buy products, pretty much all straight males (me included) can count on turning on the telly and seeing lots of voluptuous women selling things, can count on the protagonists and plots of movies revolving around straight white dudes, can count on women in these same movies being 1) beautiful and 2) sexually available to these same protagonists, etc. etc. i mean obviously there are exceptions, but society has been organized around lines that sort of assume the straight white male as its default, regardless of how advantaged or disadvantaged each particular dude may be

and let me point out that money can def be a mitigating factor, but these sorts of disadvantages follow non-SWD's throughout their lives. like, hillary clinton, one of the most powerful people in the western world, still gets her gender used against her when ppl want to take her down a notch: http://i.imgur.com/vPXCPWs.jpg

henry louis gates - a harvard professor! - gets arrested for trying to get into his own house after accidentally locking himself out. forest whitaker, successful & rich black actor, gets falsely accused of shoplifting at a nyc deli... why? does that happen to tom hanks.

what would make anyone think that economic and social class are not vital components to discussions of "privilege"?

flagging up one set of privileges ≠ minimising other sets

yeah for sure! if the conversation happens to get aligned along economic/social lines, and youre an 'underprivileged straight white dude' whos poor talking to an heiress, feel free to point out that yer experience is different. and if it the conversation gets aligned along gender/sexual orientation lines, remind yerself that yer experience is not gonna be universal.

what would make anyone think that economic and social class are not vital components to discussions of "privilege"?

well they were largely ignored on this thread and this is the second attempt at bringing them up.

flagging up one set of privileges ≠ minimising other sets

i agree with you.

but dayo said

that's not really comparable to the threat of sexual assault that women p much have to account for at all levels of society.

i'm not really trying to compare. i don't get why we would create a hierarchy like this? we have world aids day and world diabetes day, the latter doesn't denigrate the former.

i accept most of your post as it relates to gender and race - but my point is that the "straight white dudes" thing excludes class from notions of privilege, and sexuality raises a more complicated debate.

xpost yeah that's sort of what i was getting at.

if the conversation happens to get aligned along economic/social lines, and youre an 'underprivileged straight white dude' whos poor talking to an heiress, feel free to point out that yer experience is different. and if it the conversation gets aligned along gender/sexual orientation lines

isn't it also a big problem that "underprivileged" doesn't actually have a clear meaning or a sense of identity in the way that race or sexuality does, at least relatively. the fact we have to use inverted commas kind of gets at this. like, it seems another reason why that's sort of naturally excluded from the conversation, because no group of people is saying "oh hey i represent the marginalised and this is where you're wrong", the poor just aren't involved in these discussions at all as far as i can tell.

like there's a reason it isn't "straight rich white dudes" as a shorthand

well, race/gender are inescapable and immutable and attach to people regardless of their economic situation (and of course subject to those specific circumstances you brought up). it's not that economic class is naturally excluded, its that its relevance is more bracketed than experiences tied to being of a race/gender in western society.

it seems like there's a 'privilege of the underprivileged' in even having their voices heard. there are people out there who live and die lives of quiet hell, and nobody talks about them because their grievances aren't deemed legitimate by society. which is why I think "privileged" is such an unhelpful way to frame debates like these because it's such a relative term that uses stereotypes to understand very complex issues and ends up in finger pointing, axe grinding, shaming, and guilt, all the while ignoring a multitude of nuanced issues that can only be understood through peoples' limited, individual perceptions and experiences.

so you have a woman like hillary clinton tut-tutted because she's a woman, yet was one of the most powerful women in the world. then you have millions of straight white men who don't have a chance in hell of climbing out of abject poverty. what's worse here? i think the very idea of "privelege" here is in itself a product of privlege that people are unaware of.

* not even most powerful woman in the world, but most powerful person in the world.

it seems like there's a 'privilege of the underprivileged' in even having their voices heard. there are people out there who live and die lives of quiet hell, and nobody talks about them because their grievances aren't deemed legitimate by society. which is why I think "privileged" is such an unhelpful way to frame debates like these because it's such a relative term that uses stereotypes to understand very complex issues and ends up in finger pointing, axe grinding, shaming, and guilt, all the while ignoring a multitude of nuanced issues that can only be understood through peoples' limited, individual perceptions and experiences.

i agree with this strongly.

it's not that economic class is naturally excluded, its that its relevance is more bracketed than experiences tied to being of a race/gender in western society.

it feels a bit to me like experiences of discrimination based on economic class are less uniform, and maybe suffer in being recorded, as a result.

I thought a fine example of class privilege (in the sense of privilege used here--privilege as an unequal position of safety from which to speak) was Blair chastising revelers for their celebrations over the last few days. A member of the political elite who was never in live danger of Thatcher's policies telling everyone else how disrespectful they're being.

"privilege of the underprivileged" uh oh

wish I could enjoy that one elusive privilege I'm missing

bingo

it seems like there's a 'privilege of the underprivileged' in even having their voices heard. there are people out there who live and die lives of quiet hell, and nobody talks about them because their grievances aren't deemed legitimate by society. which is why I think "privileged" is such an unhelpful way to frame debates like these because it's such a relative term that uses stereotypes to understand very complex issues and ends up in finger pointing, axe grinding, shaming, and guilt, all the while ignoring a multitude of nuanced issues that can only be understood through peoples' limited, individual perceptions and experiences.

so you have a woman like hillary clinton tut-tutted because she's a woman, yet was one of the most powerful women in the world. then you have millions of straight white men who don't have a chance in hell of climbing out of abject poverty. what's worse here? i think the very idea of "privelege" here is in itself a product of privlege that people are unaware of.

― Spectrum, Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:39 AM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh come on, this is a lame rhetorical move to pull and you know it

what's worse here?

This is a terrible question though, and 'privilege' not being well suited to answer it is a point in the word's favour.

you *might* be overestimating the extent to which the underprivileged are rewarded with the exclusive privilege of having their voices heard

millions of straight white men could be a band I guess

like there's a reason it isn't "straight rich white dudes" as a shorthand

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:33 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark

maybe if i put it this way: there are structures of oppression in western society built around race/national origin; gender; sexual orientation. by being a straight white dude - even a poor straight white dude - a person is automatically situated as outside of those structures.

i was trying to point out how unhelpful it is to look at life through that lens because it misses so many things. it's trying to fit a complex, scattered life of amorphous values and experiences through a strict, directional binary that's based largely on the values and perceptions of the people using it, making it almost without foundation.

i'm not trying to say ignore social problems, but more like ... look at more social problems, in a more huminitarian way by opening up the debate by throwing off a very narrow and shaky concept.

maybe if i put it this way: there are structures of oppression in western society built around race/national origin; gender; sexual orientation. by being a straight white dude - even a poor straight white dude - a person is automatically situated as outside of those structures.

fair enough. but the thread in which the term crops up is about the concept of privilege.

there are structures of oppression in western society built around race/national origin; gender; sexual orientation

and there are none built around money/class?

Right but what I'm saying is that "What's worse here?" is not the question that privilege is answering - privilege isn't that lens, that binary.

i don't understand, LG, are you thinking about privilege as the accrual of various advantages with a common denominator? as if you tally your score and find your numerical score on the 'privilege' axis? it doesn't work that way!

the poor just aren't involved in these discussions at all as far as i can tell.

"the poor" is doing a bit of work here, though - the poor in Bolivia are, the poor a few decades back are - the fact that the Bethnal Green poor are largely (though not entirely) disinclined to think of things this way is more an effect of 25 years of Tory rags pitching them against "others" than anything else.

I mean, obviously one of the ways that modern capitalism works is keeping the people with the least to lose busy and hungry all the time, but that's not the fault of the conversations that they're not having.

What I guess I was asking was, "who's priveleged and who's not priveleged" to call into question the very idea of using the concept.

hillary clinton was used as an example of someone who falls under the "underpriveleged" for being a women, and based on stereotypes, straight white men are by nature more priveleged than her. but if you look at things more closely, does that really hold up? what are we even trying to get at here?

so it's like, hillary clinton, one of the most powerful people who has ever lived, has to deal with certain nuisances of being a woman. and women out there face far worse than being patronized by the media. but then you have the same priveleged straight white men who live and die miserable lives with no hope of escape because of circumstances that are generally ignored because they have priveleges, which is completely and utterly kooky to me. and I'm just taking this stuff from the debates had here. why ignore so many things about peoples' lives just to fit things into this narrative?

"privelege" here is starting to seem like to me to be a tool for interest groups to alleviate legitimate greviances particular to their interests, rather than a tool to better help and understand other human beings. which isn't wrong or anything, but there's this moral weight put behind the concept when it's really more pragmatic than that.

xpost elmo that's the point i'm making if you read the last few posts. i'm only stressing class because i'm being told "that's not comparable" which seems to suggest a system like you describe.

i'm not suggesting comparison or tallies, just that maybe in a thread about privilege we might want to discuss how class/social status affects it and how class/social status mean the shorthand of "straight white male" doesn't work particularly well as a catch all for the ignorant and powerful.

not to mention disability.

hillary clinton was used as an example of someone who falls under the "underpriveleged" for being a women, and based on stereotypes, straight white men are by nature more priveleged than her.

Dude no this is not what was happening! Hillary Clinton is obviously massively privileged in many ways - Dayo is just pointing out that even with that she still gets shit that she wouldn't if she was a man.

class and disability ARE included in discussions of privilege

not this one

the disingenuousness and pedantry on display itt is just wilful at this point and is also like EVERY OTHER DERAILMENT OF THE SUBJECT EVER, it's so fucking DONE. no wonder social justice tumblr is full of people being assholes about it. no fucking wonder.

^ showing his 'previous internet discussions of privilege' privilege imo

oddly enough i don't really consider this thread a full and thorough delineation of the entire subject of privilege, why not go read some actual material on it before you dismiss the concept based on a fucking ilx thread

it's not fair or justified to accuse people of being disingenuous or pedantic. if you can't argue a cogent point, don't. this thread is pretty civil.

xpost

oddly enough i don't really consider this thread a full and thorough delineation of the entire subject of privilege, why not go read some actual material on it before you dismiss the concept based on a fucking ilx thread

i'm actually trying to challenge my own views and in the process maybe i challenge those of others.

lol @ "IT'S NOT FAIR"

i'm not being disingenuous or pedantic

There's a pretty neat article by John Scalzi which I wish I'd brought up yesterday - I don't think it will bring peace to the tribes of LG and dayo - and which goes into the money/class thing in its response posts. It looks like it might be a US / rest of world thing whether you consider money and class to be essential attributes on the level of sex/race/sexuality?

don't rly see what your point is LG, one of the points of 'privilege' is that power imbalances are manifest in a lot of ways and intersect in a lot of ways, and honing in on any particular thread of it (e.g. 'that's racist') is going to fail to get to the heart of the power differential at work. This means that it isn't easy and people aren't always going to get it quite right, but that's not the fault of the concept, it's much more reflective of the fact that it's just something that's always going to be very difficult to deal with adequately.

there is peace as far as i'm concerned... xpost

one of the points of 'privilege' is that power imbalances are manifest in a lot of ways and intersect in a lot of ways, and honing in on any particular thread of it (e.g. 'that's racist') is going to fail to get to the heart of the power differential at work. This means that it isn't easy and people aren't always going to get it quite right, but that's not the fault of the concept, it's much more reflective of the fact that it's just something that's always going to be very difficult to deal with adequately.

i'm not sure how this contradicts what i've said. i mean, i don't even think this is some gigantically polarised me v everyone debate.

i'm actually trying to challenge my own views and in the process maybe i challenge those of others.

this is either hugely disingenuousness or ridiculously self-important, take your pick

i'm very good at grammar

you dropped in to the thread and made a point which i was actually making, not sure why you're on the insult train now.