privilege?

[SimonF]

I'm trying to understand the concept of privilege. It has the heavy odour of cultural marxism, but I don't doubt that privilege exists. What are we to make of it?

My post was triggered by reading this http://tacit.livejournal.com/578925.html:

Part 0: Privilege: What is it?

Put simply, when you talk about people or societies, a 'privilege' is any advantage that one person or group has over another that hasn't been specifically earned.It's a simple idea that's complicated and fraught with land mines in practice. Part of the reason for that is that privilege is invisible to those who have it. If you are in a privileged position, it doesn't seem like you have advantages over other people; it just seems like the Way Things Are. People don't consciously assert privilege. People don't get up in the morning and think "Wow, as a heterosexual white guy, I think I'll go out and oppress some women and minorities today!" Privilege is insidious because it is structural; privileged people get advantages without having to consciously think about them.[anchor=cutid1][/anchor]Because privilege is invisible, it can be really, really hard to admit we have it. We like to think of the world as being more or less mostly fair; we don't like to think of ourselves as benefitting from or participating in the oppression of others. We like to think that we are where we are because we've worked for what we have. The notion that we indirectly benefit from things that other people don't have access to tends to make us uncomfortable.The best introduction I've ever had to the idea of privilege and the invisible ways it works is the essay Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. This essay was certainly an eye-opener for me.Whenever people try to talk about privilege, certain criticisms always seem to come up. Many people, for instance, will claim that talking about "privilege" is nothing more than a way to shut them down; "Well, you aren't black/female/whatever, so you simply have no right to say anything on this topic!" I don't know whether or how often that happens, but I do know that I've seen people respond as though this is happening when what is actually being said is "Your experience is different from mine, and it seems like the privileges you take for granted are interfering with your ability to understand why."Another criticism I've seen is that the notion of "privilege" creates a pyramid of social advantages, with rich straight white guys on top and, presumably, poor black trans lesbians on the bottom. This isn't actually how it works; while rich straight white guys do have the lion's share of social privilege, privilege actually isn't so cut and dried. There are environments that privilege different groups in different ways. Men tend to enjoy many advantages over women much of the time--we are paid more in most jobs; nearly all CEOs of large corporations are male; most politicians are male; if you walk into a room of people in business suits, the "guy in charge" will usually be a guy--but in, say, family court, there are advantages that women have over men. All other things being equal, women are awarded custody of children in a divorce more often than men are. In US society, whites have a lot of advantages over blacks, but a black man will probably get better treatment at an auto mechanic than a white woman will. (The extent to which women are treated as total ignoramuses by auto mechanics never ceases to amaze me no matter how many times I see it.)

 

[Arius]

 

There's a really cool conflation of correlation and cause: "Men tend to enjoy many advantages over women much of the time--we are paid more in most jobs"...But does that have anything to do with gender?  If a stream is entirely full of red rocks, am I safe in assuming the stream turns red all rocks it touches?

 

Privilege is: Physical qualities a person is born with for which they receive preferential treatment.

But that's stupid.  The argument isn't that all men should become women or vise versa.  The argument is about the preferential treatment, not the excuse for that treatment.  The author isn't saying "All men should be women so everything can be fair".  The author is saying "All men should treat women as-if they were not of different genders".  If the discussion isn't about behavior, then it must be about castration.

In fact, all the language of the argument suggests that the physical trait is the source of the special treatment.  For example, "People don't consciously assert privilege".  You cannot "assert" being a male beyond self-identifying as one.  What a person can do is assert the superiority of a person and use a physical characteristic as an invalid, ad-hoc justification.

The funniest part is that the author is actually sexist. "but a black man will probably get better treatment at an auto mechanic than a white woman will"...because women can't be auto mechanics?

[PatrickC]

Part of the reason for that is that privilege is invisible to those who have it.

This is where I get off the ship called 'privilege'. Since this is meant to end any opposition to the premise. It's similar to when feminists say men cannot possibly have a view on feminism because they are not a woman and therefore cannot possibly understand it. It totally ignores the human capacity for mirroring and empathy.

It's the worst way of arguing your point, is to suggest that those it's attacking can never understand. It reminds me of the way christians will happily suggest that the non christians lack of faith will mean they can never understand my faith in Christ.

[Arius]

This is where I get off the ship called 'privilege'. Since this is meant to end any opposition to the premise. It's similar to when feminists say men cannot possibly have a view on feminism because they are not a woman and therefore cannot possibly understand it. It totally ignores the human capacity for mirroring and empathy.

+5 points for you.  It's totally that secret ad-hom thing again.  It's exactly the same as saying "You wouldn't understand, you're not a parent".

[MPStewart]

 I think of it this way.  The Mafia is overwhelmingly (100%?) Sicilian.  They enjoy certain advantages due to the nature of their business and how they work with the governments where they live.  Are these benefits conferred to all Sicilians simply because a small percentage are a part of this powerful organization?  No.  They are probably experiencing a lot of disadvantages due to it, part of that being discrimination simply for being Sicilian!  Sounds familiar to me.

 

As for the “privilege” of working more hours a week in fields that pay more and are typically more dangerous and risky and thus receiving more pay and promotions as a result, well, I don’t see how that’s a privilege at all.  It sounds like a reward.  As Warren Farrell says, it “requires trading quality of life for money”.

 

[Bradford26]

I think this article is right and wrong.

Definition

Privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people." The author is right that a privilege can be an advantage that isn't earned; however, it may also be an earned advantage.

Right or Wrong?

The author argues that it is wrong to exercise a privilege. Unearned privileges can be things like height, intelligence, being born to a family with alot of money. Being better at basketball because you are tall, getting scholorships because you are smart or driving a car that your parents bought you when you turned 16 are not "insidious" actions.

Privileges are Passive

According to the definition, a privilege is granted or available. A privilege which is not earned and invisible is completely passive. The person benefiting from the unearned privilege has not done anything to deserve it. How is the benefit experienced by privileged people? By the way other people interact with them. The only way that a person could experience an unearned privilege while interacting with other people is if the other people are interacting involuntarily or in a bigoted manner. If people always react a certain way to you, it would be easy to mistake
a biggotted or involuntary interaction as something that you have
earned. That may be the strongest lesson to learn from this topic.

Who's Fault is it?

By putting the blame on the person with unearned privilege, the author is condemning a person who has done no wrong while absolving the bigoted or involuntary interaction of the people "granting" the privilege.

A rich white guy who got his job over a minority, for example, is benefitting from the biggotry of the employer and may not know about the specifics of the hiring process.

Voluntary Privilege

Earned privilege is another way to call voluntary interaction. Unearned privilege is frequently related to bigotry or initiation of the use of force. Let us focus on those two things.

[PatrickC]

+5 points for you.  It's totally that secret ad-hom thing again.  It's exactly the same as saying "You wouldn't understand, you're not a parent".

+5 points for you too, since that didn't occur to me at the time, great point too.

One of the big problems I have with the people that promulgate these ideas is that they are often economically illiterate. The fact is that women and black people do exist within companies as CEO's. There problem is that they don't consider enough of them to exist and believe that the ones that are there had to work harder to get there. This is all highly subjective of course and almost impossible to prove. The only thing we can prove is that these classes of people exist as CEO's.

The other part is that no successful company is going to discriminate, since to do so would leave the market for CEO's that more tighter for them. They would also run the risk of not acquiring the skills of the latest hot shot CEO, if they happened to be black or female. Basic economics avoids much of the discrimation imo.

[Shagrath]

Part of the reason for that is that privilege is invisible to those who have it.

Here's the first problem I have with the idea. It seems as though the person is arguing that nobody is aware of their own situation. Quite absurd.

[AdamC]

 

I'm trying to understand the concept of privilege. It has the heavy odour of cultural marxism, but I don't doubt that privilege exists. What are we to make of it?

 

Privilege = "I am a Victim. Therefore you are either a Persecutor or a Rescuer. If you don't rescue me from my victimhood then you must be a Persecutor. Stop persecuting me!"

See: The Victim Drama Triangle / The Three Faces of Victim