"Privilege"

[Inanna]

I think about that two year old girl and it breaks my heart.

[Faramond]

From the "sexual assault" thread:

I don't think someone who is not a member of a particular class of people, be it gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. can ever fully understand what members of that class experience. Which is one reason (to once again make a cross-post between this thread and the parallel thread that has been ongoing in Lasto) why I believe that the use of the term "privilege" is a valuable tool in reminding people who are not a member of a particular class of the advantages that they unfairly enjoy, in comparison to members of that class (in this case the "male privilege" of not having to worry in the same way that a woman has to about things like driving alone, walking down a sidewalk, going out in the evening, wearing a certain length skirt (or shorts), talking to a strange man, walking across campus, etc.).

But you may also find that reliance on the concept of "privilege" often *invisibilizes* the real point you are trying to communicate.

I didn't really understand *exactly* what nerdanel was upset about after her first post about the attacks on women. I think I do understand after subsequent posts, because I asked some questions that were answered and by some miracle she didn't bite my head off like she did with LM. ( Maybe that will change now. ) But at no point did the word "privilege" help to communicate anything to me.

The moment someone starts lecturing me on my privilege, or the moment someone starts talking about their own privilege, I figure they aren't interested in communication with me at all. In my opinion and experience they either want to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person or they want to show how enlightened they are. I find both tiresome and pointless.

I guess I need to say this as well -- I'm not trying to prevent anyone from using the term. I just wanted to explain why I don't think it's a valuable tool. It *is* valuable to remind people that their experience isn't universal, or that they have advantages that other people don't have, or that they take for granted certain rights that other people don't have. And I know that is almost the same thing as talking about privilege -- but it's not the same thing. Being specific and avoiding charged political jargon makes all the difference if you want people to listen to you.

[axordil]

Can any term be used in this context without becoming charged? If people use a different word, it will pick up the same connotations. If people avoid using any particular word, and describe the issue ad hoc, that doesn't exactly help communication either.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The moment someone starts lecturing me on my privilege, or the moment someone starts talking about their own privilege, I figure they aren't interested in communication with me at all. In my opinion and experience they either want to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person or they want to show how enlightened they are.

You've said this a couple of times now, and I have say (or perhaps say again, I'm not sure right now), without meaning to trivialize your point of view, I just don't get it. I don't understand why you think it has to be about "winning" as opposed to about understanding of other people's experience. That is the gap that seems impossible to bridge. But I think it is worth continuing to try.

[Primula Baggins]

Any charged term "wears out" over time and is replaced by a "more acceptable" one that then also wears out because it acquires all the connotations people wanted to avoid by switching to a new term. Consider "feeble-minded," a formerly polite term that began to sound offensive and was replaced by "mentally retarded," which was similarly replaced by by "developmentally disabled," then by "developmentally delayed," then by "exceptional."

People generally seek to communicate meaning, but many also seek not to offend, even at the cost of clarity. This process of people feeling required to reject and replace formerly acceptable terms at accelerating rates has sometimes led to verbal mush—what is an "exceptional student"?

In other words, why can't a useful word continue to be used?

[nerdanel]

I didn't really understand *exactly* what nerdanel was upset about after her first post about the attacks on women. I think I do understand after subsequent posts, because I asked some questions that were answered and by some miracle she didn't bite my head off like she did with LM. ( Maybe that will change now. )

Not a miracle. You asked useful questions; didn't tell me that you were "bother[ed]" by my raising a complaint of human rights violation applicable to the "privileged" women of San Francisco and Cambridge, UK; and didn't strongly imply that you thought it was inappropriate and bothersome for Western women to complain of the human rights violations they experience in Western countries.

For what it's worth, while I did use the term privileged in my own post and intend to continue to do so, I was primarily responding to L_M's use of the word directed at me - in a category where by definition I am not privileged and he is. His post was extremely upsetting to me, but I really focused on attacking his problematic ideas rather than him personally. I'm a bit surprised to see this complaint about my tone raised in a different thread and forum, but oh well.

ETA So, to the extent that this is true:

The moment someone starts lecturing me on my privilege, or the moment someone starts talking about their own privilege, I figure they aren't interested in communication with me at all. In my opinion and experience they either want to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person or they want to show how enlightened they are. I find both tiresome and pointless.

Since L_M spoke of women in San Francisco and Cambridge leading (relatively) "privileged" lives as a counterargument to my point, under your reasoning we must conclude that he was not interested in communication with me at all; that he wanted to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person; or that he tiresomely and pointlessly wanted to show how enlightened he was.

To be clear, I don't really think any of those things are true, but they are the logical extension of your views on "privilege," are they not? (And if your read on what it means to use the term "privilege" is accurate, then "biting his head off" would be a fair response!)

[Faramond]

The moment someone starts lecturing me on my privilege, or the moment someone starts talking about their own privilege, I figure they aren't interested in communication with me at all. In my opinion and experience they either want to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person or they want to show how enlightened they are.

You've said this a couple of times now, and I have say (or perhaps say again, I'm not sure right now), without meaning to trivialize your point of view, I just don't get it. I don't understand why you think it has to be about "winning" as opposed to about understanding of other people's experience. That is the gap that seems impossible to bridge. But I think it is worth continuing to try.

It doesn't apply so much to this board -- which I suppose is part of the problem with what I am trying to communicate. You tell someone that they are privileged, the often unspoken ( but not always ) implication is that what they have to say isn't as valuable. And in some ways that might be true, if you're talking about first-hand accounts of what it's like to suffer under racism or sexism. Sure, I can't really tell you anything about that. But empathy exists, and we can at least try to imagine what things are like for other people.

If you can make the idea that someone else's words are less valuable because they are privileged, then you've won! The opponent is destroyed. ( And there are probably times when the opponent deserved to be destroyed. ) I guess I'm using some hyperbole here -- and I'm not saying that anyone here is trying to destroy the opponents, but this is an accurate reflection of what I instinctively feel is going on when "privilege" gets tossed around.

I'm trying to just ignore it, mostly, but obviously this time I didn't.

Since L_M spoke of women in San Francisco and Cambridge leading (relatively) "privileged" lives as a counterargument to my point, under your reasoning we must conclude that he was not interested in communication with me at all; that he wanted to "win" the debate and prove I'm an awful person; or that he tiresomely and pointlessly wanted to show how enlightened he was.

To be clear, I don't really think any of those things are true, but they are the logical extension of your views on "privilege," are they not? (And if your read on what it means to use the term "privilege" is accurate, then "biting his head off" would be a fair response!)

This bothers me because there are people around the world who do not enjoy legal protection from personal violence. Authorities will not prosecute people who attack them, will actually collaborate with their persecutors, or are simply too weak or non-existent to accord them any hope of legal redress for crimes committed against them. They are the people who do not enjoy these sorts of human rights. And they are overwhelmingly not women living (relatively) privileged lives in Cambridge or San Francisco.

I don't know what L_M's intent was, but to me the implied meaning of him saying you led a relatively "privileged" life was that this made your viewpoint less valuable. He makes a point of saying that YOU and people like you are privileged. Why is it even important to say this? Does it make what happened to them less appalling? I don't want to pick on L_M too much, but it is a natural inference from this statement that your viewpoint isn't as important because you're one of the privileged too. It just feels dismissive to me. You're privileged -- why are you complaining?

I shouldn't have used the phrase "bite his head off". That was silly. But yeah, if I look at it now I do think he earned the forceful response he got by throwing that line about being privileged at you.

I guess you proved that I went too far in what I said about why people use the word "privilege". What can I say? I say a lot of silly shit that I have to go back and clean up. I try to catch a lot of it in editing but it doesn't always work. But I have observed the word "privilege" used in the ways I describe outside of this board a fair amount of the time.

You show enlightenment by acknowledging one's own privilege -- you win the debate by rendering the opponents words less valuable by telling them to "check their privilege". What L_M said was a distant cousin to telling someone to check one's privilege, in my opinion.

I suppose there could be value in acknowledging privilege, but I don't find it very useful when I see it done. I mean, does it help anyone? Does it communicate anything?

I guess I have to admit that "privilege" can be used in a valuable way in some circumstances. ( I guess that's my answer to what Prim and Ax said. ) Very grudgingly admit. But I still don't like it. I hope this is the last time I post in this thread, meaning, next time privilege come up I'll just let it go.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Although I understand that it has not been comfortable for you to do so, I for one am glad that you have persisted up to this point, because I better understand where you are coming from. I can't say that my experience has been the same as yours, but that in no way lessens the validity of your experience. By you sharing your perspective, I have a better sense of why the use of the term could be seen as detrimental.

[Primula Baggins]

What Voronwë said. You have the unusual trait of honestly pursuing your points and explaining your posts, rather than packing up your toys and stomping away (as I have done all too often) when disagreed with. In the course of reading what you have to say, I often find myself rethinking things I've said. I very much appreciate it, Faramond.

[nerdanel]

Faramond, I meant to also add my appreciation to Prim's and V's. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this issue and to revise your own thoughts based on what you hear in the discussion. I also learned from your explanation of your discomfort with the term "privilege."

To keep it fair and balanced, here are the two perspectives laid out with raised voices. Bill O'Reilly explains why there is no white privilege in modern America, and Jon Stewart explains why there is white privilege in modern America.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-int ... -interview

[Impenitent]

Dang. Video not available in my region.

Faramond, I hope you continue to provide your thoughtful perspective.

[yovargas]

That was awesome. I feel like I could watch them do that for hours.

[Inanna]

Great video, thanks nerdanel.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In that video, Jon modestly states that he is not the best or most articulate person to discuss those issues. I give you, the very next night:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-int ... -interview

(This clip isn't as much "fun" but perhaps more substantial.)

[yovargas]

That's one remarkably well-spoken man. Good stuff.

[Primula Baggins]

You can see why he was apparently considered as a possible host for Meet the Press. I'm glad he didn't get it; it would be like hiring Vermeer to paint the trim on your house.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jon's a good interviewer, but I'm pretty sure that yov was referring to his guest in that segment, Bryan Stevenson.

Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[Primula Baggins]

Gah. It was late and I didn't want to run a video. Serves me right.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's worth watching when you get a chance.

[Passdagas the Brown]

My point is that when a black kid is unfairly targeted by cops, nothing has been "given" to whites. Theft from one group is not a gift towards the other. Violence against blacks is not a gift to whites and thinking of it that way - which is what the word privilege implies - is perverse, IMO.

But when a black kid is unfairly not given a job (despite being the most qualified), a white kid certainly benefits (and the stats show that being highly-qualified and black is still far more difficult than being moderately-qualified and white). Or when black kids are routinely locked up for long periods of time for minor violations, while white kids who commit the same violations are either given a slap on the wrist or lighter sentences, the white kids benefit. When sentences for cocaine (an expensive drug predominately consumed by white people) are much lighter than sentences for crack (a cheap drug predominately used by black people), the white people benefit. That's privilege, plain and simple. White people don't just enjoy more fair treatment under the law (and in the workplace), they benefit materially from the the law being more harshly applied to black people. White people are, indeed, often afforded MORE rights than the law should allow, particularly when compared to how the law is applied to black people. In that sense, quite a lot has been "given" to whites by virtue of their ethnicity alone, and that's "privilege."

As a white person, I find it to be a word with great explanatory power. I also find it to be a useful term for engendering a greater level of both humility and empathy in majority communities - a check against the tyranny of the majority which our forefathers sought to prevent. IMO, it is pride ('I have no privilege, I work hard!') and a lack of empathy ('black people have the same opportunities as I do!') which drives opposition to the concept of privilege in the public debate (not on this MB, to be clear). But the truth is, majority communities do have privileges which minority communities can never have, no matter how hard they work. Unless, of course, minority communities become majority communities. Then things can change, and the new majority must strive not to repeat the sins of the old.